John Campbell wrote: > On 02/02/2018 01:07 PM, Floyd Anderson wrote: >> Hi Helmut, >> >> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 18:34:23 +0100 >> Helmut Jarausch <jarau...@skynet.be> wrote: >>> With glibc-2.27 installed I cannot compile anything, since most >>> packages try to include <gnu/stubs-32.h> >>> which doesn't exit any more. >>> And downgrading glibc using a binary package doesn't work. >>> >>> It looks like I have to restore my system from a recent backup, >>> very annoying! >> Restoring your backup is probably faster but I want to point out the >> possibility of an intermediate build chroot [1] to get back a working >> toolchain. This helped me in the past to solve troubles with glibc and >> when I didn’t knew about buildpkg/buildsyspkg for FEATURES variable. > It's been fixed now. glibc-2.27-r1 is in the tree and re-instates the > x32 libs and headers. > > I just emerged the new lib and everything is find. I have > FEATURES=preserve-libs set so I'm not sure how the missing x32 libs > might effect your compile but I had no issues. > > >
While on this topic, I have a question about glibc. I have it set in make.conf to save the binary packages. Generally I use it when I need to go back shortly after a upgrade, usually Firefox or something. However, this package is different since going back a version isn't a good idea. My question tho, what if one does go back a version using those saved binary packages? Has anyone ever did it and it work or did it and it fail miserably? While at it, if a upgrade really breaks a system, what is the *correct* thing to do? Wait for a new fixed version, even if it breaks things in the meantime? Just curious. Thanks to the OP for the heads up. I run stable on that BUT it's still a good idea to warn others, who may not run stable and not know the problem, yet. Dale :-) :-)
