From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OnGi2-0002bP-Ib for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:00:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96507E0807; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:59:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FA4E0807 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:59:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so3354408ewy.40 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=sQh8DG9wQQJPQATuemoNkx3rmgEzXh9cknYZqJZyh34=; b=xuHhKF9maf4ii3y1x2Ml5Kc71FhzUfqotxfjfjnYxt86mqxuEC8AMuuRtBVO/qwXNb hNy3o30jtXbt75XKrMM18nKICuvTwICaYms+AEXv78Hvtdb09HhpE0OT+Uvqsy5HSRXv 8u9C6g7rITuZWtGPi+klzvoSmoYboBD01YQSk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=IydBR+7ZoUCD5mhbxVNxV4gi/YjHqb0kEJl7rOzG1w6XK95+DDuLuOiEL+Fl6T9Kow Q3csoqyk2ZhQcEMildZOWZtzhjhJnxh8Y/1p+lhzQ86X2v/RSuxdzZ3P2t0SdDmymvPs SKgBmR9J3Sfz5PRFyHBlb0jW4TWZwuvrHNyG4= Received: by 10.213.28.20 with SMTP id k20mr761788ebc.73.1282507164695; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-202-152.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.202.152]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm9512889eeh.20.2010.08.22.12.59.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:56:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-ck-r1; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <17550.1282481535@ccs.covici.com> <201008222119.56944.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <22410.1282506240@ccs.covici.com> In-Reply-To: <22410.1282506240@ccs.covici.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201008222156.27254.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 81d20cde-9686-4a35-9477-7b9cddabb0ee X-Archives-Hash: 1e2ae1cce633dfa3e7200aca8cdbcad4 Apparently, though unproven, at 21:44 on Sunday 22 August 2010, covici@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Apparently, though unproven, at 20:57 on Sunday 22 August 2010, > > > > covici@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly: > > > > There is a way to downgrade for the brave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quickpkg glibc > > > > move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay. > > > > Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out. > > > > Mask glibc2.12 > > > > update glibc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system, > > > > then revdep- rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in > > > > which case you are really up the creek. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It > > > > could not possibly have undergone decent testing > > > > > > I have another idea -- what would I have to restore from backup to > > > completely cancel the entire update process I have done since yesterday > > > -- and then I could mask off the bad glibc and be back to something at > > > least somewhat consistent? > > > > I too have another idea - look at emerge.log and tell us what you emerged > > since yesterday. Then restore those packages. > > If I tried that -- how would I downgrade glibc in the process -- I am > sure I could figure out all the packages, but that downgrade scares me > -- would I do the packages in reverse order, or what? I also changed my > gcc before this update, I could certainly reverse that as well. It all depends on what tools you have available and how many packages were upgraded between yesterday and today. If you have tarballs for at least system in your packages dir, then just merge the old ones back. If not, then downgrade glibc and either emerge -e system or run revdep-rebuild. gcc is not a major issue, it simply builds runnable code and links to other stuff. As long as the ABI didn't change, and it didn't, gcc will not cause any relevant problems. The real problem is glibc which provides the C library. Almost everything links to that and it's interfaces can and do change. So packages built since that upgrade may well break with a downgrade. But like I said the best approach will depend on what packages are involved and you still haven't provided that list. I used to have a crystal ball that could gaze into your mind and your disk to find these answer, but ironically it too is now broken by the very same glibc upgrade you are dealing with. So you must look into this yourself. However, it's not all bad news - at least my fee to you will not increase. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com