[gentoo-dev] glibc question re bug #67166 et al

[gentoo-dev] glibc question re bug #67166 et al

[Collins Richey]

I've encountered one of the many flavors of this bug (arts-1.3.1 fails
to compile). The recommended action in the bugzilla is to recompile
glibc with USE="nptlonly." Is this a safe practice for nptl users, or
will this break something else because the linuxthreads code is
omitted?
-- 
 /\/\
(CR) Collins Richey
 \/\/        "I hear you're single again." "Spouse 2.0 had fewer bugs than
              Spouse 1.0, but the maintenance ... was too much for my OS."
                  - Glitch (tm)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc question re bug #67166 et al

[Andrew Gaffney]

Collins Richey wrote:
> I've encountered one of the many flavors of this bug (arts-1.3.1 fails
> to compile). The recommended action in the bugzilla is to recompile
> glibc with USE="nptlonly." Is this a safe practice for nptl users, or
> will this break something else because the linuxthreads code is
> omitted?

I believe that USE="nptlonly" will revert to the old NPTL behavior (only NPTL 
glibc built) instead of the new behavior (NPTL and non-NPTL glibc built when 
USE="nptl"). So, if NPTL glibc worked for you previously, USE="nptlonly" should 
be "safe" for you.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney
Network Administrator
Skyline Aeronautics, LLC.
636-357-1548


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc question re bug #67166 et al

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 17 October 2004 04:41 pm, Collins Richey wrote:
> Is this a safe practice for nptl users, or
> will this break something else because the linuxthreads code is
> omitted?

considering USE=nptl has been omitting linuxthreads support thus far on your 
machine, nothing should break
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: glibc question re bug #67166 et al

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger posted <200410181023.55410.vapier@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:23:55 -0400:

> On Sunday 17 October 2004 04:41 pm, Collins Richey wrote:
>> Is this a safe practice for nptl users, or will this break something
>> else because the linuxthreads code is omitted?
> 
> considering USE=nptl has been omitting linuxthreads support thus far on
> your machine, nothing should break

That's what I thought here, on AMD64, compiled from original install with
kernel 2.6/nptl, but I tried compiling it w/ nptlonly, and it broke a
number of apps, including ls!  I had a time backing out, too, but IIRC I
was able to do so by manually extracting an older binary glibc package
over top of the existing system, since emerge functionality was pretty
much broken.  Luckily bz2 and tar continued to work, as did mc, a bit
surprisingly given its dependencies in comparison to ls.

Anyway, I /etc/package.masked that for now and remain back on
glibc-2.3.4.20040808-r1.  I noticed another one come up that I hadn't
tried, but as they tend to come and go rather fast, I decided to wait and
see, before attempting a 200410xx emerge again real soon.  I have
tomorrow off work unless they call me in, so maybe I'll remove my mask
and see what's available, then, when I have the extra time to recover if
it dies on me again.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list