Re: [gentoo-user] A question about emerge --info

["Andrey Vul" <andrey.vul@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Andrey Falko <ma3oxuct@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Andrey Vul <andrey.vul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Andrey Falko <ma3oxuct@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Paul Hartman
>> > <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've always been curious about something in emerge --info's output:
>> >>
>> >> $ emerge --info
>> >> Portage 2.2_rc12 (default/linux/amd64/2008.0/desktop, gcc-4.3.2,
>> >> glibc-2.8_p20080602-r0, 2.6.27-gentoo-r1 x86_64)
>> >> =================================================================
>> >> System uname:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Linux-2.6.27-gentoo-r1-x86_64-Intel-R-_Core-TM-2_CPU_6600_@_2.40GHz-with-glibc2.2.5
>> >> Timestamp of tree: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:31:02 +0000
>> >>
>> >> Why does it show the glibc-2.8 on the second line but glibc2.2.5 on the
>> >> fifth?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >
>> > My best guess is that your kernel was compiled by a toolchain that was
>> > running on glibc2.2.5
>> >
>> > See what happens if you recompile the kernel under the newer toolchain.
>> >
>> 2.6.27 uses glibc? Really?
>> I'm asking lkml what's happening.
>>
>>

> Well it doesn't use glibc per se, gcc uses the glibc.....however, his uname
> -a output does look funky.
My point exactly.

> Here is mine: System uname: 2.6.24.7 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6700 @
> 2.66GHz
>
> Did all underscores make it there by accident? What happens when you do a
> plain uname -a?

Here's my uname -a: Linux andrey 2.6.26.5-rt9 #6 PREEMPT RT Mon Oct 20
18:21:31 EDT 2008 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1700+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
But emerge --info | grep uname is this: System uname:
Linux-2.6.26.5-rt9-i686-AMD_Athlon-tm-_XP_1700+-with-glibc2.0

Clearly, the underscores and -with-glibc are part of portage 2.2_rc12.
I'm going to scan through the portage _rc12.patch diff to see what's
going on.
Will report when finished.


-- 
Andrey Vul

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?