[gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[Jay Goodman Tamboli]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

I just did a sync (server scrolled offscreen.  logged
anywhere?), and I notice lots of upgrades, including glibc
to 2.3.2-r1 (from 2.3.1-r4).  I started checking some of the
CVS logs, and at least for glibc, man, and fileutils, the
change of KEYWORD ~x86 to x86 was done by drobbins as part
of "amd64" fixes.  I'd like to be careful about a glibc
upgrade, so can someone confirm that all these changes are
intentional and correct?

/jgt
-- 
I would sooner fail than not be among the greatest.  -- John Keats

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:44:42PM -0400, Jay Goodman Tamboli wrote:
> I just did a sync (server scrolled offscreen.  logged
> anywhere?), and I notice lots of upgrades, including glibc
> to 2.3.2-r1 (from 2.3.1-r4).  I started checking some of the
> CVS logs, and at least for glibc, man, and fileutils, the
> change of KEYWORD ~x86 to x86 was done by drobbins as part
> of "amd64" fixes.  I'd like to be careful about a glibc
> upgrade, so can someone confirm that all these changes are
> intentional and correct?
> 
> /jgt
> -- 
> I would sooner fail than not be among the greatest.  -- John Keats

No, this was an accident. drobbins is currently fixing it.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:47:10PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:44:42PM -0400, Jay Goodman Tamboli wrote:
> > I just did a sync (server scrolled offscreen.  logged
> > anywhere?), and I notice lots of upgrades, including glibc
> > to 2.3.2-r1 (from 2.3.1-r4).  I started checking some of the
> > CVS logs, and at least for glibc, man, and fileutils, the
> > change of KEYWORD ~x86 to x86 was done by drobbins as part
> > of "amd64" fixes.  I'd like to be careful about a glibc
> > upgrade, so can someone confirm that all these changes are
> > intentional and correct?
> > 
> > /jgt
> > -- 
> > I would sooner fail than not be among the greatest.  -- John Keats
> 
> No, this was an accident. drobbins is currently fixing it.
> 

Let me amend that: glibc 2.3.2 is going to be stable on x86 from here on 
out. There is no other choice - reverting to 2.3.1 would break more 
things than it'd fix.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[John Mylchreest]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1395 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 01:49, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:47:10PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:44:42PM -0400, Jay Goodman Tamboli wrote:
> > > I just did a sync (server scrolled offscreen.  logged
> > > anywhere?), and I notice lots of upgrades, including glibc
> > > to 2.3.2-r1 (from 2.3.1-r4).  I started checking some of the
> > > CVS logs, and at least for glibc, man, and fileutils, the
> > > change of KEYWORD ~x86 to x86 was done by drobbins as part
> > > of "amd64" fixes.  I'd like to be careful about a glibc
> > > upgrade, so can someone confirm that all these changes are
> > > intentional and correct?
> > > 
> > > /jgt
> > > -- 
> > > I would sooner fail than not be among the greatest.  -- John Keats
> > 
> > No, this was an accident. drobbins is currently fixing it.
> > 
> 
> Let me amend that: glibc 2.3.2 is going to be stable on x86 from here on 
> out. There is no other choice - reverting to 2.3.1 would break more 
> things than it'd fix.

please ignore my comment about not stabilising 2.3.2 in my previous mail
if this is the case ;)

-- 
John Mylchreest.
Gentoo Linux Developer

Gentoo Linux:	http://www.gentoo.org
Public Key:	gpg --recv-keys 0xEAB9E721
		http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEAB9E721

Key fingerprint:0670 E5E4 F461 806B 860A  2245 A40E 72EB EAB9 E721

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[Marius Mauch]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:49:49 -0400 Jon Portnoy wrote:

> Let me amend that: glibc 2.3.2 is going to be stable on x86 from here
> on out. There is no other choice - reverting to 2.3.1 would break more
> things than it'd fix.

Currently glibc-2.3.2 is ~x86 again (changed by drobbins). So who is
right?

Marius

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 06:51:47PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:49:49 -0400 Jon Portnoy wrote:
> 
> > Let me amend that: glibc 2.3.2 is going to be stable on x86 from here
> > on out. There is no other choice - reverting to 2.3.1 would break more
> > things than it'd fix.
> 
> Currently glibc-2.3.2 is ~x86 again (changed by drobbins). So who is
> right?
> 

Good question.

I guess we're going to leave things as-is. I just woke up, personally, 
and am getting caught up on what's going on, so I can't really speak 
officially at the moment.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[Alan]

> > of "amd64" fixes.  I'd like to be careful about a glibc
> > upgrade, so can someone confirm that all these changes are
> > intentional and correct?
> No, this was an accident. drobbins is currently fixing it.

There are a lot of other packages still marked as newly stable (saw this
email last night and figured I'd wait till morning), no glibc but things
like baselayout, fileutils, procpc, etc.  It looks like a couple of
packages in dev-perl (mod_perl, HTML-Mason) had their deps bumped to
apache2 as well, while the apache 2 package is still masked (I threw a
couple of lines into packages.mask so that an emerge -up world would
complete).  

Just wondering if things are still being worked on or not, and if I
should throw a bug report in about this and/or just let an emerge world
go with the new packages.

alan

-- 
Alan <alan@ufies.org> - http://arcterex.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are only 3 real sports: bull-fighting, car racing and mountain 
climbing. All the others are mere games."                -- Hemingway

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[John Mylchreest]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1223 bytes --]

Out of curiosity, is anyone aware of a winex fix for glibc 2.3.2 yet? I
would be wary stabilising glibc until it is (This doesn't count to the
current accidental marking) as its quite the major package.

Apparently it works with nptl but the 2.5.72 sysctl.h is syntactically
incorrect for gcc-3.3 (at least), easy fix mind. can anyone clarify?

I know this probably isnt the place to ask this, although it was kind of
on-topic.

On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 01:44, Jay Goodman Tamboli wrote:
> I just did a sync (server scrolled offscreen.  logged
> anywhere?), and I notice lots of upgrades, including glibc
> to 2.3.2-r1 (from 2.3.1-r4).  I started checking some of the
> CVS logs, and at least for glibc, man, and fileutils, the
> change of KEYWORD ~x86 to x86 was done by drobbins as part
> of "amd64" fixes.  I'd like to be careful about a glibc
> upgrade, so can someone confirm that all these changes are
> intentional and correct?
> 
> /jgt
-- 
John Mylchreest.
Gentoo Linux Developer

Gentoo Linux:	http://www.gentoo.org
Public Key:	gpg --recv-keys 0xEAB9E721
		http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEAB9E721

Key fingerprint:0670 E5E4 F461 806B 860A  2245 A40E 72EB EAB9 E721

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] drobbins mass mark stable

[FRLinux]

Afaik, winex with their brand new release (3.1) fixed this issue, as
read on the release notes but i haven't tested that.

Steph

On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 01:52, John Mylchreest wrote:
> Out of curiosity, is anyone aware of a winex fix for glibc 2.3.2 yet? I
> would be wary stabilising glibc until it is (This doesn't count to the
> current accidental marking) as its quite the major package.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list