Bug 913956

Summary:	sys-apps/sed binpkgs should not be installable on systems with too-old versions of glibc
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Michael Jones <gentoo>
Component:	Current packages	Assignee:	Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE
Severity:	normal
Priority:	Normal
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---

Description Michael Jones 2023-09-10 21:38:07 UTC

I had a system that has been offline for > 2 years.

I'm aware that Gentoo does not guarentee the ability to upgrade to the latest portage tree from longer than 1 year ago, so I was approaching this as an incremental upgrade, walking the portage tree forward 6 months at a time from the point where the system was last up to date.

I copied a handful of binpkgs onto this machine from a fully up to date system.

Installing sys-apps/sed, with "emerge -1 --ignore-default-opts --usepkg=y sys-apps/sed" worked without complaint by portage, but now almost no emerge commands work, including installing older versions of sed and/or newer versions of glibc, because the now installed version of sed has a runtime check for glibc being a newer version than what's installed.

Packages that embed this kind of check (either explicitly or implicitly as an artifact of compiling against glibc headers) should not allow themselves to be installed on systems with versions of glibc that are too old.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Sam James archtester

2023-09-10 21:41:46 UTC

Yep, already working on it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 753500 ***

Comment 2 Michael Jones 2023-09-10 21:56:21 UTC

Apparently this is a duplicate of https://bugs.gentoo.org/913628

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 913628 ***

Comment 3 Sam James archtester

2023-09-10 22:00:32 UTC

(In reply to Michael Jones from comment #2)
> Apparently this is a duplicate of https://bugs.gentoo.org/913628
> 
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 913628 ***

No, it's a duplicate of the one I marked it as a duplicate of - see the various dupes of that one. It's just that I came up with a different idea for solving it in the short term.

It's easier to have them all as dupes of the thing we've used historically for it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 753500 ***

Comment 4 Michael Jones 2023-09-10 23:53:36 UTC

You marked the bug as a duplicate while i was in the middle of doing so myself. I wasn't attempting to contradict you.