Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Cc: William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] glibc-2.12.1
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:09:05
Message-Id: 201008181605.06097.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] glibc-2.12.1 by William Kenworthy
1 On Wednesday 18 August 2010 01:32:32 William Kenworthy wrote:
2 > Hi Alan, a suggestion - for "mission critical" clone one of your systems
3 > into a vm (dd), get it working, upgrade and test.
4 >
5 > Or clone to a chroot and do the same.
6 >
7 > Not quite 100% - but allows some peace of mind!
8
9
10 Hi Bill,
11
12
13 Good advice in general, but not really applicable to the specifics of my
14 situation.
15
16 Being the dyed-in-the-wool gentoo fanatic that I am, I refuse to install it on
17 production machines. I have 100+ of those and every one is different so things
18 simply do not scale. Workload would increase hugely, not decrease, if I used
19 gentoo.
20
21 It's my personal laptop that wants glibc upgraded. I use gentoo on all my
22 personal machines and the -dev boxes too - USE makes it trivially easy to
23 change the environment for whatever R&D is needed.
24
25 But for critical production machines? Not a flying chance in hell :-)
26 Too many times I've had to sort out the carnage from idiotic juniors who
27 blindly run "emerge -uND world" and walk away thinking Unix always works like
28 RedHat.
29
30 Gentoo requires far too much intelligence from it's sysadmin for maintenance
31 to be automated - either by software means or by human means.
32
33 {I just know I'm gonna get flamed for this now :-) }
34
35
36 >
37 > BillK
38 >
39 > On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:34 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
40 > > On Tuesday 17 August 2010 15:21:35 Peter Ruskin wrote:
41 > > > On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote:
42 > > > > Hi,
43 > > > >
44 > > > > Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
45 > > > >
46 > > > > I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1,
47 > > > > and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only
48 > > > > comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and
49 > > > > this makes me quadruple nervous:
50 > > > >
51 > > > >
52 > > > >
53 > > > >
54 > > > > And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying
55 > > > > that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated
56 > > > > correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system
57 > > > > whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I
58 > > > > maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch
59 > > > > when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
60 > > > > would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something
61 > > > > I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good
62 > > > > material to work on the quality assurance status.
63 > > > >
64 > > > > “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a
65 > > > > t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12
66 > > > > does not work this way.
67 > > >
68 > > > OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check
69 > > > and that went OK too.
70 > >
71 > > I got a couple of replies, all like this one - positive.
72 > >
73 > > Thanks, all. I'll start the update later on tonight and let 'er run.
74
75 --
76 alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc-2.12.1 Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>