Bug 382377 – =sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4: stabilize

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Jason McGuiness 2011-09-09 12:00:35 UTC]

sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4 has been stable on my AMD64 platform for some time. Perhaps time to mark as stable?

Reproducible: Always

[Comment 1 Ed Tomlinson 2011-09-10 18:28:07 UTC]

Are you able to build sys-libs/apr with 2.13-r4?  Failing here with same symptoms as 120837.

[Comment 2 Jason McGuiness 2011-09-11 16:15:16 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Are you able to build sys-libs/apr with 2.13-r4?  Failing here with same
> symptoms as 120837.

I tried re-building dev-libs/apr-1.4.4 (the only apr I could find) and that apparently built successfully:

XXXsnipXXX
...
strip: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-strip --strip-unneeded -R .comment
   usr/lib64/libapr-1.so.0.4.4
   usr/lib64/libapr-1.a

>>> Installing (1 of 1) dev-libs/apr-1.4.4
>>> Auto-cleaning packages...
XXXsnipXXX

And the file times of the resultant files in /usr/lib64/ showed that they had indeed been rebuilt. I used ldd on libapr-1.so.0.4.4 which showed:

libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f26cd4a5000)

And nm on libc.so.6 showed this symbol:

0000000000000000 A GLIBC_2.13

Which implies that it was a binary from this version used to build libapr. So I guess, on my system, libapr builds against it.

[Comment 3 SpanKY 2011-09-11 19:31:52 UTC]

if there is a package that doesnt build against glibc-2.13, then it should be marked as blocking Bug 354107

[Comment 4 Vicente Olivert Riera (RETIRED) 2011-10-12 12:00:32 UTC]

sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4 is the solution for this bug -> #283673
Please, stabilize it as soon as posible.

[Comment 5 Jens-Uwe Peter 2011-10-30 16:38:31 UTC]

Tracker has no dependencies left. Are we ready to go stable now?

[Comment 6 SpanKY 2011-11-22 16:32:26 UTC]

'bout that time again

[Comment 7 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2011-11-22 18:20:44 UTC]

wut?

[Comment 8 Agostino Sarubbo 2011-11-22 19:57:23 UTC]

x86/amd64 (also on hardened environment) ok

[Comment 9 Jeff (JD) Horelick (RETIRED) 2011-11-22 21:47:42 UTC]

Archtested on x86: Tests failed, but other than that, everything else is fine. I'd personally like to see one more AT signoff for x86 though due to those failing tests.

[Comment 10 Agostino Sarubbo 2011-11-22 22:41:38 UTC]

(In reply to comment #9)
> Archtested on x86: Tests failed, but other than that, everything else is fine.
> I'd personally like to see one more AT signoff for x86 though due to those
> failing tests.

Same here, I guess is not a regression

[Comment 11 David Abbott (RETIRED) 2011-11-23 08:51:21 UTC]

Created attachment 293485 [details]
glibc.report

Tested on x86, all good here.

[Comment 12 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2011-11-24 20:00:27 UTC]

Stable for HPPA.

[Comment 13 Markus Meier 2011-12-03 10:42:36 UTC]

arm stable

[Comment 14 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) 2011-12-04 16:27:51 UTC]

tests fail. Not a regression. amd64 done. Thanks Agostino

[Comment 15 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. (RETIRED) 2011-12-11 09:12:09 UTC]

x86 stable

[Comment 16 Raúl Porcel (RETIRED) 2011-12-11 17:25:40 UTC]

alpha/ia64/sparc stable, need to test s390 and sh

[Comment 17 Mark Loeser (RETIRED) 2011-12-30 15:06:31 UTC]

ppc/ppc64 done

[Comment 18 SpanKY 2012-04-14 02:03:27 UTC]

marked s390 stable

[Comment 19 SpanKY 2012-08-14 16:21:52 UTC]

obsoleted by bug 430346