Sebastian Günther <sam...@guenther-roetgen.de> writes: > * Harry Putnam (rea...@newsguy.com) [12.06.09 16:41]: >> >> There is a patch offered but still one would think using standard >> emerge on a package that is outside the `~' daredevil stage and is not >> masked, it should `just work' [tm]. >> >> > > When I read the bug rightfully, procmail did not build with glibc > 2.10.1, which is *not* stable yet, especially because of a lot packages > which don't build cleanly with it at the moment. > > So if you'd use the stable glibc it would build fine. There is no need > to mark procmail in any way. ~x86 should be able to apply patches on > their own, or wait until the patch arrives in tree.
Probably should use only stable but never have in over 5 yrs. Probably much to the dismay of this list. But even then, when a package is known in advance NOT to install with current ~x86 tools, seems there would be some way to let user know that. Since you've said it is because of glibc... and this is a known bug seems there might be a way to flag or mark procmail as incompatible with it. Maybe that would be way to hard to keep up with?
