Due to many problems with glibc-2.13, I request hard-masking it until all problems are resolved. Forum thread for glibc-2.13 problems: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-863281.html Reproducible: Always
I am aware that this is not really a glibc-2.13 problem, but rather many packages using memcpy incorrectly. However, not masking glib-2.13 renders many systems unusable, so I advice to hard-mask glibc-2.13 until most of the problems are resolved.
glibc can't be downgraded, so no, we can't mask it.
glibc can be downgraded. Guide at https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-845000-highlight-glibc+downgrade.html Scenario 1: Leave glibc unmasked -------------------------------- * ~arch users upgrade to glibc, which breaks many packages. * ALL ~arch users need to downgrade manually Scenario 2: Mask glibc ---------------------- * Those who already upgraded need to downgrade manually anyways * All other users are safe with 2.12.* The impact is already here, it's a question if you force ALL users to downgrade (which will happen when non-masking 2.13) or only those who already upgraded.
masking glibc once it's been unmasked is a no-go. that'd break systems for people who have already compiled packages against the newer glibc's headers and so forth.
Please re-read Comment #3. The system breaks anyways, no matter what you do. However, you can NOW decide to affect only SOME users (by masking glibc-2.13) or ALL users (by not masking glibc-2.13).
Another way would be to revert the change to memcpy() via a patch and release it as glibc-2.13-r1, which would prevent the need to hard-mask glibc-2.13 and allowing users to recover.
Or we can fix the broken packages and get on with it.
Please stop reopening this bug report. (In reply to comment #5) > The system breaks anyways, no matter what you do. However, you can NOW decide > to affect only SOME users (by masking glibc-2.13) or ALL users (by not masking > glibc-2.13). ALL users -> ~arch users. Prepare to test for and report more bugs if you run ~arch. Or use stable.
(In reply to comment #5) > The system breaks anyways, no matter what you do. However, you can NOW decide > to affect only SOME users (by masking glibc-2.13) or ALL users (by not masking > glibc-2.13). > I would disagree with that. Maybe I am just lucky, but I have upgraded to glibc-2.13 on 3 systems, two ~x86 and one ~amd64 hardened, and so far have seen no breakages.
