| 1 |
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Andrey Falko <ma3oxuct@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Paul Hartman |
| 5 |
> <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I've always been curious about something in emerge --info's output: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> $ emerge --info |
| 10 |
>> Portage 2.2_rc12 (default/linux/amd64/2008.0/desktop, gcc-4.3.2, |
| 11 |
>> glibc-2.8_p20080602-r0, 2.6.27-gentoo-r1 x86_64) |
| 12 |
>> ================================================================= |
| 13 |
>> System uname: |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Linux-2.6.27-gentoo-r1-x86_64-Intel-R-_Core-TM-2_CPU_6600_@_2.40GHz-with-glibc2.2.5 |
| 16 |
>> Timestamp of tree: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:31:02 +0000 |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Why does it show the glibc-2.8 on the second line but glibc2.2.5 on the |
| 19 |
>> fifth? |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Thanks, |
| 22 |
>> Paul |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> My best guess is that your kernel was compiled by a toolchain that was |
| 26 |
> running on glibc2.2.5 |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> See what happens if you recompile the kernel under the newer toolchain. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
By toolchain do you mean gcc/binutils? Both have been built since I've |
| 31 |
had glibc 2.8 installed. When I build my kernel I just "make all" |
| 32 |
(after configuring, of course). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I've never even had glibc2.2.5 on this computer. The earliest was 2.5 |
| 35 |
and I've been using 2.8 since June. That's why the message confuses |
| 36 |
me. "uname -a" does not actually mention anything about glibc, but |
| 37 |
emerge --info is getting it from somewhere. I haven't tried to look |
| 38 |
into the depths of emerge sources yet to figure out exactly where it's |
| 39 |
getting that info. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Thanks, |
| 42 |
Paul |
Archives