Summary: | =sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4: stabilize | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Jason McGuiness <gentoo-bugs> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo Toolchain Maintainers <toolchain> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | axiator, edt, flow, kensington, nikoli |
Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 354107 | ||
Bug Blocks: | |||
Attachments: | glibc.report |
Description
Jason McGuiness
2011-09-09 12:00:35 UTC
Are you able to build sys-libs/apr with 2.13-r4? Failing here with same symptoms as 120837. (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. if there is a package that doesnt build against glibc-2.13, then it should be marked as blocking Bug 354107 sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4 is the solution for this bug -> #283673 Please, stabilize it as soon as posible. Tracker has no dependencies left. Are we ready to go stable now? 'bout that time again wut? x86/amd64 (also on hardened environment) ok 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. (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 Created attachment 293485 [details]
glibc.report
Tested on x86, all good here.
Stable for HPPA. arm stable tests fail. Not a regression. amd64 done. Thanks Agostino x86 stable alpha/ia64/sparc stable, need to test s390 and sh ppc/ppc64 done marked s390 stable obsoleted by bug 430346 |