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 1MFtfh-0002X0-5y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:39:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F698E0123; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9FFE0123 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAA26617B for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:39:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.89 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8r74yDYiYMEN for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BA9660A0 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MFtfS-0003wG-6e for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:38:54 +0000 Received: from c-98-215-178-110.hsd1.in.comcast.net ([98.215.178.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:38:54 +0000 Received: from reader by c-98-215-178-110.hsd1.in.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:38:54 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Harry Putnam Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: About procmail and getline Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:38:42 -0500 Organization: Still searching... Message-ID: <874ouipvfh.fsf@newsguy.com> References: <20090614165753.GB12492@marvin.heimnetz.local> 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 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-215-178-110.hsd1.in.comcast.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BHIzOECkm02HKKwct4Z1QKTYlNE= Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b4f3b04d-eb2d-490f-9c40-505e2d2d0832 X-Archives-Hash: 6fd3d922efa78a51978ec947dcdc490f Sebastian G=C3=BCnther writes: > * Harry Putnam (reader@newsguy.com) [12.06.09 16:41]: >>=20 >> There is a patch offered but still one would think using standard >> emerge on a package that is outside the `~' daredevil stage and is not >> masked, it should `just work' [tm].=20 >>=20 >> > > When I read the bug rightfully, procmail did not build with glibc=20 > 2.10.1, which is *not* stable yet, especially because of a lot packages= =20 > which don't build cleanly with it at the moment. > > So if you'd use the stable glibc it would build fine. There is no need=20 > to mark procmail in any way. ~x86 should be able to apply patches on=20 > their own, or wait until the patch arrives in tree. Having run ~x86 since starting to build this install... how big of a problem would it be to return to stable?