From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12, DMARC_MISSING,FREEMAIL_FROM,FROM_LOCAL_DIGITS,FROM_LOCAL_HEX, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.81]) by cvs.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14VXJO-0001Rc-00 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:19:58 -0700 Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.com by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14VXKU-00083z-01; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:21:06 +0100 Received: from helios.bagwan (320095285153-0001@[217.80.39.136]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14VXKO-11FFQ0C; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:21:00 +0100 Received: (qmail 30602 invoked by uid 0); 21 Feb 2001 14:02:18 -0000 Received: from sadchitananda2.bagwan (HELO gottinger.de) (achim@192.168.2.1) by helios.bagwan with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 14:02:18 -0000 Message-ID: <3A939E66.489E136E@gottinger.de> From: 320095285153-0001@t-online.de (Achim Gottinger) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.2.2 / binutils-2.1.10.0.7 are incompatible/buggy!!!!! Don't use them on rc4_pre References: <3A90BA1F.5C3183BD@gottinger.de> <20010221024947.A7139@rouge.snu.ac.kr> <3A937839.697D60A2@gottinger.de> <20010221195604.B9090@rouge.snu.ac.kr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320095285153-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Reply-To: achim@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed Feb 21 04:20:02 2001 X-Original-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:54:30 +0100 X-Archives-Salt: 337fa83e-8a4a-4f58-b19d-2f66b22e081b X-Archives-Hash: 2351b612e89d6666176fc606d3bf5ac8 Kyung-hwan Kim wrote: > > > Hmm seems like the uploaded package was build with binutils-2.1.10. > > I made a new package for binutils-2.1.10.91.0.2 that fixes some ld > > segfaults. > > With that binutils version I build a new glibc-2.2.2 package (r1). > > This should not give you segfaults. It works here for me. But many packages > > do not compile > > with glibc-2.2.2 because the headers have changed. > > After merging binutils-2.10.1.0.7 and everything gose beautifully. > But merging glibc-2.2.2, nothing would go its way. > > Do you mean that packages must be recompiled under glibc-2.2.2 and > updated binutils environment? No normaly that should not be neccesary. It seems that the problem is arch dependend. I use i686-pc-linux-gnu here. The rc4_pre2 packages use i486-pc-linux-gnu as default. I currently building glibc-2.2.2-r1 with binutils-2.10.92.0.2 on a pure rc4_pre2 machine. I hope that works. Did the glibc test's fail on your machine when using binutils 2.10.1? On a i686 target they do. achim~ > If so, no non-developer gentoo user can succeed in upgrading glibc. > > Kyunghwan > > _______________________________________________ > gentoo-dev mailing list > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org > http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev