According to the NEWS file (the URL), the current version of glibc is 2.9, with datestamp 20080802. Could somebody snapshot it and release it as sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20080802? Reproducible: Couldn't Reproduce Steps to Reproduce: N/A Actual Results: N/A Expected Results: N/A Due to http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2008-05/msg00074.html, I can't trust the tarballs as being the most recent. Only the NEWS file can be trusted with regards to new versions.
You're right, there is a newer tag. Assigning to maintainers.
GLibC 2.9 hasn't been released yet. The 'Version 2.9' section of the NEWS file describes changes which have been already made on GLibC trunk and will be available in GLibC 2.9 when it is released. http://sourceware.org/glibc/ version.h: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/libc/version.h?&content-type=text/plain&cvsroot=glibc
Ah, I see. But still, the current snapshot of glibc is 2.8-20080908 and gentoo's current snapshot is 2.8-20080602.
we're not bumping glibc everytime there's a development snapshot.
the snapshots are made by scripts on the server. just because one exists doesnt mean it is actually different from the previous week. if the 2.8 snap differs from the one we actually have, you can file a bug. otherwise it is completely pointless.
now tis out.
The first snapshot of glibc-2.9 was released today. You can add sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081124 to the tree.
probably best to wait and see what happens with http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12215
glibc-2.9_p20081201 in the tree
I think there is indeed a name resolve issue with 2.9. Name resolving is very slow, or fails where it didn't with 2.8. Reverting back to 2.8 fixes it, but of course is not something an average user should do. There is a patch reverting the resolving to 2.8 behaviour at the upstream bug: http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7060
(In reply to comment #10) > I think there is indeed a name resolve issue with 2.9. Name resolving is very > slow, or fails where it didn't with 2.8. Reverting back to 2.8 fixes it, but of > course is not something an average user should do. Please open another bug for this issue instead of filing this under the release bug. Thanks.
