Bug 354391 – Request to package.mask sys-libs/glibc-2.13

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: VERIFIED CANTFIX

[Description Timo A. Hummel 2011-02-10 18:07:44 UTC]

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

[Comment 1 Timo A. Hummel 2011-02-10 18:12:19 UTC]

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.

[Comment 2 Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2011-02-10 19:31:55 UTC]

glibc can't be downgraded, so no, we can't mask it.

[Comment 3 Timo A. Hummel 2011-02-10 19:37:22 UTC]

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.

[Comment 4 Samuli Suominen (RETIRED) 2011-02-10 19:59:03 UTC]

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.

[Comment 5 Timo A. Hummel 2011-02-10 20:12:45 UTC]

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).

[Comment 6 Timo A. Hummel 2011-02-10 20:17:38 UTC]

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.

[Comment 7 Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2011-02-10 20:31:33 UTC]

Or we can fix the broken packages and get on with it.

[Comment 8 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2011-02-10 21:13:33 UTC]

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.

[Comment 9 Graham Murray 2011-02-11 17:17:18 UTC]

(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.