1 |
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 15:21:35 Peter Ruskin wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
> > Hi, |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet? |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1, |
8 |
> > and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only |
9 |
> > comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and |
10 |
> > this makes me quadruple nervous: |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying |
16 |
> > that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated |
17 |
> > correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system |
18 |
> > whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I |
19 |
> > maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch |
20 |
> > when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you |
21 |
> > would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something |
22 |
> > I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good |
23 |
> > material to work on the quality assurance status. |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a |
26 |
> > t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12 |
27 |
> > does not work this way. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check |
30 |
> and that went OK too. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
I got a couple of replies, all like this one - positive. |
34 |
|
35 |
Thanks, all. I'll start the update later on tonight and let 'er run. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |