| 1 |
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1, |
| 7 |
> and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only |
| 8 |
> comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and |
| 9 |
> this makes me quadruple nervous: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying |
| 15 |
> that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated |
| 16 |
> correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system |
| 17 |
> whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I |
| 18 |
> maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch |
| 19 |
> when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you |
| 20 |
> would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something |
| 21 |
> I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good |
| 22 |
> material to work on the quality assurance status. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a |
| 25 |
> t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12 |
| 26 |
> does not work this way. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check |
| 29 |
and that went OK too. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Peter |
| 33 |
======================================================================== |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.2_rc67 kernel-2.6.35-gentoo-r1 |
| 35 |
AMD Phenom(tm) 9950 Quad-Core Processor gcc(Gentoo: 4.4.4-r1) |
| 36 |
KDE: 3.5.10 Qt: 3.3.8b |
| 37 |
======================================================================== |
Archives