Summary: | dev-lang/erlang fails to build with glibc 2.8 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Holger Hoffstätte <holger> |
Component: | [OLD] Development | Assignee: | Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) <fauli> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | lang-misc+disabled |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 225459 | ||
Attachments: |
fix for build against glibc-2.8
Official patch as confirmed by upstream |
Description
Holger Hoffstätte
2008-06-12 13:15:40 UTC
Created attachment 156491 [details, diff]
fix for build against glibc-2.8
This is just a quick attempt, but it did the trick; build succeeds and works. Not happy with the fixed version numbers, as glibc 2.9 will likely hit the same problem.
I have also posted this to the erlang.bugs list; we'll see what the official recommendation is. (In reply to comment #2) > I have also posted this to the erlang.bugs list; we'll see what the official > recommendation is. I will not apply the patch yet as I have the same uneasy feeling about it. By the way, I haven't seen a mail from you on the erlang-bugs mailing list. I read many lists via gmane and apparently postings to the erlang lists are eaten..which would explain why nobody ever answered my questions. :( Will try nabble.. (In reply to comment #4) > I read many lists via gmane and apparently postings to the erlang lists are > eaten..which would explain why nobody ever answered my questions. :( Give me the text and I will post it for you. (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I read many lists via gmane and apparently postings to the erlang lists are > > eaten..which would explain why nobody ever answered my questions. :( > > Give me the text and I will post it for you. Much appreciated but I guess sooner or later I'll have to subscribe anyway, so that's what I just did (maybe they authorize gmane and subscribers). Jeez..I've been using email since '91 and this just keeps getting worse.. Will commit 12B-3 soon, please test if that succeeds with glibc 2.8 even though it is not mentioned in the ChangeLog in any way. (In reply to comment #7) > Will commit 12B-3 soon, please test if that succeeds with glibc 2.8 even though > it is not mentioned in the ChangeLog in any way. I see it in portage but how would it suceed if the patch is not there? (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Will commit 12B-3 soon, please test if that succeeds with glibc 2.8 even though > > it is not mentioned in the ChangeLog in any way. > > I see it in portage but how would it suceed if the patch is not there? Maybe it was fixed by upstream, so unlikely...I did not add the patch as I will wait for a reaction of the Erlang upstream. Upstream response: http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=17820804&framed=y As I suspected we can remove the minor version check for glibc; I'll update the patch asap. Created attachment 156639 [details, diff]
Official patch as confirmed by upstream
Fixed, thanks. |