| 1 |
On 03/02/18 16:08, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It is perfectly fine to downgrade glibc if you didn't emerge anything |
| 4 |
>> that compiled binaries. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> If you did, you can still downgrade, but then you need to rebuild the |
| 7 |
>> packages that you emerged since the glibc upgrade. qlop is your friend |
| 8 |
>> here; it lets you find out the dates on which you emerged packages. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That makes sense. So, if worse comes to worse, downgrade, then emerge |
| 11 |
> -e world if unsure what all has been updated since. If, using qlop or |
| 12 |
> friends, you can figure what was done since the upgrade, emerge those to |
| 13 |
> make sure the linking is correct. At least that is a option that should |
| 14 |
> be doable. That's better than thinking you can't downgrade for any |
| 15 |
> reason, period. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You might not be able to do that, if python (used by emerge) uses |
| 18 |
something that breaks when downgrading glibc. Or gcc. Or binutils. Or |
| 19 |
bash. Or anything else that's needed during an emerge. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So you need to check with qlop *before* downgrading, and if it looks |
| 22 |
like something critical was built against the new glibc, then all bets |
| 23 |
are off. Which is why the downgrade protection exists in the first place. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The only way out of this, is restoring from backup or fixing things by |
| 26 |
booting from a sysrescuecd or similar. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If only firefox or your media player and stuff like that got built |
| 29 |
against the new glibc, then it's fine to downgrade. Otherwise, you could |
| 30 |
end up bricking your system. |
Archives