On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:24, Duncan wrote:
> Simon Strandman posted <42E55ADB.8030201@telia.com>, excerpted below,  on
>
> Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:34:19 +0200:
> > Done! Bug #100289
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100289
> >
> > Tell me if I need to provide any more information.
> Do note that any issues that might exist would seem to disappear once the
> entire system is compiled against the patched glibc.  That's why SuSE can
> get away with running the patch -- their entire amd64 release will have
> been compiled against the patched glibc.  Thus, there are no known issues
> with doing a stage-1 bootstrap with these patches, since by the time the
> system is up and running, it'll all be compiled against the patched glibc.
> Likewise, there are no known issues at this time, should one decide to
> patch glibc, and then do an emerge --emptytree.  In any case, however,
> doing your own glibc patching, regardless of what the patch is, is likely
> to blacklist any bugs you may file.  That's something that may be
> worthwhile to keep in mind.
>
As the reporter of the problem with nano, I'd like to make 1 correction to 
this report: Recompiling nano and its depencies did not fix the crashes. It 
just fixed the eating of the file. 
I did not recompile my entire system, but a crash of such a small and basic 
app as nano made me not want to do this outside of a chroot, which I 
currently do not have the means for. 
I reread my report, and I saw it was not clear that recompiling nano and its 
dependencies did not fix the crashes. Sorry for the confusion.

Jan Jitse