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 |