[gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
desktop and home server and broke both.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

All mail what i send is thoughly proof-red, definately!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Monday 07 February 2011 13:34:52 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
> desktop and home server and broke both.

sys-libs/glibc
     Available versions:  (2.2) [P]*2.2.5-r10!s 2.5-r4!s **2.5.1!s 2.6.1!s 
(~)2.7-r2!s 2.8_p20080602-r1!s 2.9_p20081201-r2!s (~)2.9_p20081201-r3!s 
2.10.1-r1!s 2.11.2-r3!s (~)2.11.3!s (~)2.12.1-r3!s{tbz2} (~)2.12.2!s{tbz2} 
(~)2.13!s{tbz2}
        {build crosscompile_opts_headers-only debug gd glibc-compat20 glibc-
omitfp hardened multilib nls nptl nptlonly profile selinux vanilla}                                                                                   
     Installed versions:  2.13(2.2)!s{tbz2}(23:14:36 05.02.2011)(gd glibc-
omitfp multilib nls -crosscompile_opts_headers-only -debug -hardened -profile -
selinux -vanilla)                                                        
     Homepage:            http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html
     Description:         GNU libc6 (also called glibc2) C library

I] mail-mta/postfix
     Available versions:  2.6.5 2.6.6 (~)2.6.7 2.7.1 2.7.2{tbz2} (~)2.8.0-
r1{tbz2} {cdb dovecot-sasl hardened ipv6 ldap mbox mysql nis pam postgres sasl 
selinux sqlite ssl vda}                                                  
     Installed versions:  2.8.0-r1{tbz2}(20:00:10 25.01.2011)(ipv6 mbox mysql 
pam postgres sasl sqlite ssl -cdb -dovecot-sasl -hardened -ldap -nis -selinux 
-vda)                                                                 
     Homepage:            http://www.postfix.org/
     Description:         A fast and secure drop-in replacement for sendmail.

don't use prelink - but postfix still Works For Me(tm)

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Rudmer van Dijk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 447 bytes --]

On Monday 07 February 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
> desktop and home server and broke both.

confirmed, prelink kills the system!
running prelink -u restores it (if you happen to have a root shell open)

so I'm disabling prelink for now, glibc-2.12.2 does not build with latest 
binutils...


	Rudmer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2608 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Allan Gottlieb]

On Mon, Feb 07 2011, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> On Monday 07 February 2011 13:34:52 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
>> After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
>> desktop and home server and broke both.
>
> sys-libs/glibc
>      Available versions:  (2.2) [P]*2.2.5-r10!s 2.5-r4!s **2.5.1!s 2.6.1!s 
> (~)2.7-r2!s 2.8_p20080602-r1!s 2.9_p20081201-r2!s (~)2.9_p20081201-r3!s 
> 2.10.1-r1!s 2.11.2-r3!s (~)2.11.3!s (~)2.12.1-r3!s{tbz2} (~)2.12.2!s{tbz2} 
> (~)2.13!s{tbz2}
>         {build crosscompile_opts_headers-only debug gd glibc-compat20 glibc-
> omitfp hardened multilib nls nptl nptlonly profile selinux vanilla}                                                                                   
>      Installed versions:  2.13(2.2)!s{tbz2}(23:14:36 05.02.2011)(gd glibc-
> omitfp multilib nls -crosscompile_opts_headers-only -debug -hardened -profile -
> selinux -vanilla)                                                        
>      Homepage:            http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html
>      Description:         GNU libc6 (also called glibc2) C library
>
> I] mail-mta/postfix
>      Available versions:  2.6.5 2.6.6 (~)2.6.7 2.7.1 2.7.2{tbz2} (~)2.8.0-
> r1{tbz2} {cdb dovecot-sasl hardened ipv6 ldap mbox mysql nis pam postgres sasl 
> selinux sqlite ssl vda}                                                  
>      Installed versions:  2.8.0-r1{tbz2}(20:00:10 25.01.2011)(ipv6 mbox mysql 
> pam postgres sasl sqlite ssl -cdb -dovecot-sasl -hardened -ldap -nis -selinux 
> -vda)                                                                 
>      Homepage:            http://www.postfix.org/
>      Description:         A fast and secure drop-in replacement for sendmail.
>
> don't use prelink - but postfix still Works For Me(tm)

Same for me.  I just checked and several bugs have been opened.
Scary.

allan gottlieb

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:16:20 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> don't use prelink - but postfix still Works For Me(tm)

That's odd, it broke local deliveries for me - and others. Fortunately,
nothing was lost, it just stayed in the queue while I recompiled glibc.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Am I ignorant or apathetic? I don't know and don't care!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Holger Hoffstaette]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:47:01 +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:16:20 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 
>> don't use prelink - but postfix still Works For Me(tm)
> 
> That's odd, it broke local deliveries for me - and others. Fortunately,
> nothing was lost, it just stayed in the queue while I recompiled glibc.

Same here, but are you saying you fixed this by rebuilding 2.13? I ask
because I rebuilt postfix but that did not help. I don't see how
rebuilding glibc-2.13 again will fix this.

thanks
Holger

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 772 bytes --]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:39:15 +0100, Holger Hoffstaette wrote:

> > That's odd, it broke local deliveries for me - and others.
> > Fortunately, nothing was lost, it just stayed in the queue while I
> > recompiled glibc.  
> 
> Same here, but are you saying you fixed this by rebuilding 2.13? I ask
> because I rebuilt postfix but that did not help. I don't see how
> rebuilding glibc-2.13 again will fix this.

I rebuilt 2.12.2. You have to remove the downgrade check from
$PORTDIR/sys-libs/glibc/files/eblits/pkg_setup.eblit. As the binary
package created with FEATURES=buildpkg contained this check, I could not
emerge -k it, I had to let it compile again.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Time is the best teacher....., unfortunately it kills all the students"

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Holger Hoffstaette]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:55:27 +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:39:15 +0100, Holger Hoffstaette wrote:
> 
>> > That's odd, it broke local deliveries for me - and others.
>> > Fortunately, nothing was lost, it just stayed in the queue while I
>> > recompiled glibc.
>> 
>> Same here, but are you saying you fixed this by rebuilding 2.13? I ask
>> because I rebuilt postfix but that did not help. I don't see how
>> rebuilding glibc-2.13 again will fix this.
> 
> I rebuilt 2.12.2. You have to remove the downgrade check from
> $PORTDIR/sys-libs/glibc/files/eblits/pkg_setup.eblit. As the binary
> package created with FEATURES=buildpkg contained this check, I could not
> emerge -k it, I had to let it compile again.

Thanks, that's what I ended up doing just this morning as well. I also had
the binary package built as safety measure and couldn't restore it
back..what a masterpiece of a fuckup.

thanks
-h

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:58:03 +0100, Holger Hoffstaette wrote:

> > I rebuilt 2.12.2. You have to remove the downgrade check from
> > $PORTDIR/sys-libs/glibc/files/eblits/pkg_setup.eblit. As the binary
> > package created with FEATURES=buildpkg contained this check, I could
> > not emerge -k it, I had to let it compile again.  
> 
> Thanks, that's what I ended up doing just this morning as well. I also
> had the binary package built as safety measure and couldn't restore it
> back..what a masterpiece of a fuckup.

I was tempted to untar the binary package into / and then emerge it after
to clean up any remnants of 2.13, but as postfix was queuing mail and not
bouncing it, I decided to be patient for once.


-- 
Neil Bothwick


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 02/07/2011 02:34:52 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on
> my
> desktop and home server and broke both.

Has anybody tried this 
http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html



-- 
Helmut Jarausch
Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
RWTH - Aachen University
D 52056 Aachen, Germany

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 664 bytes --]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:37:41 +0100, Helmut Jarausch wrote:

> > Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> > After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on
> > my
> > desktop and home server and broke both.  
> 
> Has anybody tried this 
> http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html

That's the fix for the prelinking problem, which is covered in more
detail in the forum thread it links to, especially how to recover when
you get a kernel panic.

The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

War does not determine who is right -- only who is left.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 15:34 on Monday 07 February 2011, Neil 
Bothwick did opine thusly:

> Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
> desktop and home server and broke both.


hehe, I'm safe :-)

I've hardmasked >=glibc-2.12 ever since the blatantly untested cock up that 
was the first testing version of glibc-2.12 hit the tree



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:49:33 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> hehe, I'm safe :-)
> 
> I've hardmasked >=glibc-2.12 ever since the blatantly untested cock up
> that was the first testing version of glibc-2.12 hit the tree

Now if only you could mask your smugness plugin :P

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Wednesday 09 February 2011, Neil 
Bothwick did opine thusly:

> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:49:33 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > hehe, I'm safe :-)
> > 
> > I've hardmasked >=glibc-2.12 ever since the blatantly untested cock up
> > that was the first testing version of glibc-2.12 hit the tree
> 
> Now if only you could mask your smugness plugin :P

I'm trying. I'm not succeeding.

Wetware works different to software.

<sigh>


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 151 bytes --]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:36:24 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Wetware works different to software.

Yes, you can't reboot it whenever it annoys you.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Allan Gottlieb]

On Tue, Feb 08 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:37:41 +0100, Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>
>> > Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
>> > After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on
>> > my
>> > desktop and home server and broke both.  
>> 
>> Has anybody tried this 
>> http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html
>
> That's the fix for the prelinking problem, which is covered in more
> detail in the forum thread it links to, especially how to recover when
> you get a kernel panic.
>
> The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix.

I am not sure I understand.  I did the glibc upgrade and have not
downgraded.  I run postfix and my mail is coming and going.  I had
thought/hoped that postfix does work with the new glibc if you don't do
prelinking (which is my configuration: 2-13 glibc, postfix, no prelink).

If glibc-2.13 kills postfix w/o prelinking then perhaps, I am just lucky
and my overall configuration is such that it "works for me".  I am
assuming that a glibc fix will be forthcoming quickly so am not anxious
to downgrade, but am even less anxious to have postfix suddenly stop
working.

Thanks for keeping us informed.
allan

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1043 bytes --]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:03:36 -0500, Allan Gottlieb wrote:

> > The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix.  
> 
> I am not sure I understand.  I did the glibc upgrade and have not
> downgraded.  I run postfix and my mail is coming and going.  I had
> thought/hoped that postfix does work with the new glibc if you don't do
> prelinking (which is my configuration: 2-13 glibc, postfix, no prelink).
> 
> If glibc-2.13 kills postfix w/o prelinking then perhaps, I am just lucky
> and my overall configuration is such that it "works for me". 

I think you're lucky, as is Volker. A number of people, me included, have
had Postfix fail with

postfix/local[4452]: fatal: unable to determine open file limit
postfix/master[4001]: warning: process /usr/lib/postfix/local pid 4452 exit status 1
postfix/master[4001]: warning: /usr/lib/postfix/local: bad command startup -- throttling

Prelinking is not involved, so it must be down to how you have configured
Postfix, probably the local delivery settings.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Allan Gottlieb]

On Wed, Feb 09 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:03:36 -0500, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
>
>> > The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix.
>> 
>> I am not sure I understand.  I did the glibc upgrade and have not
>> downgraded.  I run postfix and my mail is coming and going.  I had
>> thought/hoped that postfix does work with the new glibc if you don't
>> do prelinking (which is my configuration: 2-13 glibc, postfix, no
>> prelink).
>> 
>> If glibc-2.13 kills postfix w/o prelinking then perhaps, I am just
>> lucky and my overall configuration is such that it "works for me".
>
> I think you're lucky, as is Volker. A number of people, me included,
> have had Postfix fail with
>
> postfix/local[4452]: fatal: unable to determine open file limit
> postfix/master[4001]: warning: process /usr/lib/postfix/local pid 4452
> exit status 1 postfix/master[4001]: warning: /usr/lib/postfix/local:
> bad command startup -- throttling
>
> Prelinking is not involved, so it must be down to how you have
> configured Postfix, probably the local delivery settings.

Thanks neil for the explanation and thank you my lucky stars for sparing
me this mail failure.

allan

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Nils Holland]

On 13:34 Mon 07 Feb     , Neil Bothwick wrote:

> Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
> desktop and home server and broke both.

Thanks a lot, I've read your mail just in time. Actually, glibc 2.13
krept onto my first machine Monday night - I generally test new
versions of such "far reaching" stuff as glibc on a single machine
first before letting to onto all of my boxes. I didn't have any
problems with the new glibc, and tonight I would have updated a few
additional machines, one of which happens to run Postfix. I guess I'm
going to delay that a bit now. ;-)

Greetings,
Nils


-- 
Nils Holland * Ti Systems, Wunstorf-Luthe (Germany)
Powered by GNU/Linux since 1998

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 616 bytes --]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 23:23:50 +0100, Nils Holland wrote:

> Thanks a lot, I've read your mail just in time. Actually, glibc 2.13
> krept onto my first machine Monday night - I generally test new
> versions of such "far reaching" stuff as glibc on a single machine
> first before letting to onto all of my boxes. I didn't have any
> problems with the new glibc, and tonight I would have updated a few
> additional machines, one of which happens to run Postfix.

That's what happened to me, I updated one box, rebooted, made sure things
worked and then updated the Postfix server and the prelinked desktop.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[walt]

On 02/09/2011 02:31 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 23:23:50 +0100, Nils Holland wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot, I've read your mail just in time. Actually, glibc 2.13
>> krept onto my first machine Monday night - I generally test new
>> versions of such "far reaching" stuff as glibc on a single machine
>> first before letting to onto all of my boxes. I didn't have any
>> problems with the new glibc, and tonight I would have updated a few
>> additional machines, one of which happens to run Postfix.
>
> That's what happened to me, I updated one box, rebooted, made sure things
> worked and then updated the Postfix server and the prelinked desktop.

Could you explain a bit about prelinking?  Does it have anything to do with
the sys-devel/prelink package or the gentoo 'prelink' useflag?

Or maybe Alan, if he's done polishing his humility plugin :p

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Nils 
Holland did opine thusly:

> On 13:34 Mon 07 Feb     , Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> > After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
> > desktop and home server and broke both.
> 
> Thanks a lot, I've read your mail just in time. Actually, glibc 2.13
> krept onto my first machine Monday night - I generally test new
> versions of such "far reaching" stuff as glibc on a single machine
> first before letting to onto all of my boxes. I didn't have any
> problems with the new glibc, and tonight I would have updated a few
> additional machines, one of which happens to run Postfix. I guess I'm
> going to delay that a bit now. ;-)

This raises an interesting point.

glibc is a problematic package, it's tentacles run very deep in any GNU 
system, it has a less than stellar history in terms of breaking gentoo systems 
(mostly due to inadequate testing before releasing to ~arch)

And it's very difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check in the 
ebuild. I have yet to find a supported, documented way to back out of glibc 
screw-ups; my way is to keep binpkgs of @system and use those.

Yes it's true that downgrading glibc is often a sure road to suicide, but the 
current method is also unworkable. Surely, surely, there's a better way?

I'd even go so far as to support a portage feature-request: automatic binpkgs 
of a sub-set of @system that the user must opt-out of in make.conf: python, 
portage, glibc, gcc, maybe a few other highly critical packages.

What say you all?

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:48:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> And it's very difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check
> in the ebuild. I have yet to find a supported, documented way to back
> out of glibc screw-ups; my way is to keep binpkgs of @system and use
> those.
> 

The trouble is that binpkgs keep a copy of the ebuild in them, so even if
you remove the downgrade check fro the in-tree ebuild, it still fails.
That one had me scratching my head for a few minutes.

The thing is, a downgrade like that one is not a problem, especially if
done soon after the upgrade. The problems arise when you build other
packages against the later glibc and then downgrade.

We need a more intelligent test and we need a way of circumventing the
restriction that doesn't involve editing the ebuild, something like

I_KNOW_ITS_DODGY_BUT_IM_DESPERATE=true emerge \<sys-libs/glibc-2.13


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Famed tautologist dies of suicide in distressing tragedy

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1522 bytes --]

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:34:59 -0800, walt wrote:

> On 02/09/2011 02:31 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 23:23:50 +0100, Nils Holland wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks a lot, I've read your mail just in time. Actually, glibc 2.13
> >> krept onto my first machine Monday night - I generally test new
> >> versions of such "far reaching" stuff as glibc on a single machine
> >> first before letting to onto all of my boxes. I didn't have any
> >> problems with the new glibc, and tonight I would have updated a few
> >> additional machines, one of which happens to run Postfix.
> >
> > That's what happened to me, I updated one box, rebooted, made sure
> > things worked and then updated the Postfix server and the prelinked
> > desktop.
> 
> Could you explain a bit about prelinking?  Does it have anything to do
> with the sys-devel/prelink package or the gentoo 'prelink' useflag?

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/prelink-howto.xml explains it, although it
misses out the part about it speeding up the reduction of your system to
a useless wreck with a broken glibc :(

Apparently, prelinking is less of a benefit than it used to be. I can't
say I've noticed any difference having removed it this wekk and may well
not reinstall it when glibc is fixed. I suspect a lot will feel the same.

> Or maybe Alan, if he's done polishing his humility plugin :p

What make you think he's got one... or even know what it is :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Sir! Romulan warbird decloaki»®õ÷üÁ NO CARRIER

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Philip Webb]

110210 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> glibc is problematic, it's tentacles run very deep in any GNU system,
> it has a less than stellar history in terms of breaking gentoo systems,
> mostly due to inadequate testing before releasing to ~arch.
> it's v difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check in the ebuild.
> I'd support a portage feature-request:
> automatic binpkgs of a sub-set of @system
> that the user must opt-out of in make.conf:
> python, portage, glibc, gcc, maybe a few others
> What say you all?

I avoid such problems by  2  simple precautions:
(1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &
(2) I have  FEATURES="buildsyspkg"  in  make.conf .
Beyond those, I'ld say Gentoo users are grown-ups who don't need coddling.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 02:05 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Neil 
Bothwick did opine thusly:


> > Or maybe Alan, if he's done polishing his humility plugin :p
> 
> What make you think he's got one... or even know what it is :)

Yeah, come to think of it, what is that thing anyway? Must be related to the 
certificate I got at last year's end-of-year function.

After all the usual ones (employee of the quarter), and the unusual ones (most 
gratuitous use of the word fuck in a work context - [my manager]) there was a 
special presentation:

====
PEDANTIC OVERLORD

For ruling Unix shell and Tacacs access with an adamantium fist.
No exceptions!
=====

Presented to: you guessed it

:-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 800 bytes --]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:

> (1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &

Someone has to or they'll never get tested.

> (2) I have  FEATURES="buildsyspkg"  in  make.conf .

It didn't help here.

> Beyond those, I'ld say Gentoo users are grown-ups who don't need
> coddling.

The problem is that we are being coddled with the "we won't let you
downgrade because we don't think it is safe for you" ebuilds. We're
asking for less coddling, to be able to make our own decisions and be
able to keep the pieces if they turn out to be wrong. A stern warning
should be sufficient.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Documentation: (n.) a novel sold with software, designed to entertain the
               operator during episodes of bugs or glitches.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 02:05 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Neil
> Bothwick did opine thusly:
>
>
>    
>>> Or maybe Alan, if he's done polishing his humility plugin :p
>>>        
>> What make you think he's got one... or even know what it is :)
>>      
> Yeah, come to think of it, what is that thing anyway? Must be related to the
> certificate I got at last year's end-of-year function.
>
> After all the usual ones (employee of the quarter), and the unusual ones (most
> gratuitous use of the word fuck in a work context - [my manager]) there was a
> special presentation:
>
> ====
> PEDANTIC OVERLORD
>
> For ruling Unix shell and Tacacs access with an adamantium fist.
> No exceptions!
> =====
>
> Presented to: you guessed it
>
> :-)
>
>
>    

This reminds me of when I left my puter job.  Windows 3.1 came out.  I 
worked with it for a few months then turned in my notice.  The song they 
played at the going away party, "you are my hero".  I went to work in 
sales for a magazine distributor, no computer needed.  They thought it 
was brave of me to change careers.  Come to think of it, some may have 
wished they had changed to right now.  The computer field around here is 
a bit . . . crazy.  It's also a low paying job if you can find one.

Now some of you know how much I hate windows.  Of course, DOS wasn't 
much better,

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Keith Dart]

=== On Wed, 02/09, Dale wrote: ===
> Now some of you know how much I hate windows.  Of course, DOS wasn't 
> much better,

===

Yep. I've been using Linux on my desktop since version 1.2, and
UnixWare before that. Some Mac in there too. I avoid Windows like the
plague that it is.

-- Keith Dart

-- 

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Keith Dart <keith@dartworks.biz>
   public key: ID: 19017044
   <http://www.dartworks.biz/>
   =====================================================================

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Philip Webb]

110210 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> (1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &
> Someone has to or they'll never get tested.

Come on ! -- not on a production system !

>> (2) I have  FEATURES="buildsyspkg"  in  make.conf .
> It didn't help here.

The OP was making a proposal to solve the more general problem,
incl requiring users to adopt (2) by default.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:50:44 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:

> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:  
> >> (1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &  
> > Someone has to or they'll never get tested.  
> 
> Come on ! -- not on a production system !

Who mentioned production systems?

> >> (2) I have  FEATURES="buildsyspkg"  in  make.conf .  
> > It didn't help here.  
> 
> The OP was making a proposal to solve the more general problem,
> incl requiring users to adopt (2) by default.

No, he was stating that he had a particular setting, although Alan did
suggest it as a default. Either way, it doesn't help with about the
most serious package it's possible to break (I use FEATURES=buildpkg).


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: glibc 2.13 warning

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 04:07 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Keith Dart 
did opine thusly:

> === On Wed, 02/09, Dale wrote: ===
> 
> > Now some of you know how much I hate windows.  Of course, DOS wasn't
> > much better,
> 
> ===
> 
> Yep. I've been using Linux on my desktop since version 1.2, and
> UnixWare before that. Some Mac in there too. I avoid Windows like the
> plague that it is.


Lucky you. I have to deal with MS DNS caches and ntp implementations.

And PuTTY. OMFG, I hate PuTTY. Actually I hate PuTTY users but they cause me 
to hate PuTTY just as much.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Thursday 10 February 2011 00:02:07 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:48:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > And it's very difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check
> > in the ebuild. I have yet to find a supported, documented way to back
> > out of glibc screw-ups; my way is to keep binpkgs of @system and use
> > those.
> 
> The trouble is that binpkgs keep a copy of the ebuild in them, so even if
> you remove the downgrade check fro the in-tree ebuild, it still fails.
> That one had me scratching my head for a few minutes.

what happens if you remove the entry in /var/db?
From gentoo's point of view, glibc suddenly is not installed. You are free to 
choose a version.

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 838 bytes --]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:10:06 -0800 (PST), Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> > The trouble is that binpkgs keep a copy of the ebuild in them, so
> > even if you remove the downgrade check fro the in-tree ebuild, it
> > still fails. That one had me scratching my head for a few minutes.  
> 
> what happens if you remove the entry in /var/db?
> From gentoo's point of view, glibc suddenly is not installed. You are
> free to choose a version.

That's a good question, I had assumed it was getting the info from the
binpkg, but a grep of the entry in /var/db shows no sign of the warning
message (it's not in the ebuild but in an eblit file) so removing
the db entry would appear to be fruitless.

However, I've already recovered two machines from glibc breakage
this week, I'm not about to do anything to cause any more :(
	

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Thursday 10 February 2011 18:24:51 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:10:06 -0800 (PST), Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > The trouble is that binpkgs keep a copy of the ebuild in them, so
> > > even if you remove the downgrade check fro the in-tree ebuild, it
> > > still fails. That one had me scratching my head for a few minutes.
> > 
> > what happens if you remove the entry in /var/db?
> > From gentoo's point of view, glibc suddenly is not installed. You are
> > free to choose a version.
> 
> That's a good question, I had assumed it was getting the info from the
> binpkg, but a grep of the entry in /var/db shows no sign of the warning
> message (it's not in the ebuild but in an eblit file) so removing
> the db entry would appear to be fruitless.

wtf?

no, the 2.12.1 binpackage does not know which versions are installed. It just 
includes a version check.
If no glibc is installed (and removing the /var/db/pkg/sys-libs/glibc-2.13 
directory = no glibc installed) then you are free to install any binpkg you 
want.

Or, you know, just extract ld.so from a tarball, copy it into /lib, and un-
prelink your system. Then re-install 2.13. Problem solved.

Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:32:20 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> no, the 2.12.1 binpackage does not know which versions are installed.
> It just includes a version check.
> If no glibc is installed (and removing
> the /var/db/pkg/sys-libs/glibc-2.13 directory = no glibc installed)
> then you are free to install any binpkg you want.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. That should have worked.

> Or, you know, just extract ld.so from a tarball, copy it into /lib, and
> un- prelink your system. Then re-install 2.13. Problem solved.

Except the problem with the binpkg was most significant on the system
without prelinking, the one that broke Postfix. I did consider unpacking
the glibc-2.12 binpkg to / then re-emerging 2.12 to clean up.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]