[gentoo-user] Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!!
Chromium now cannot render web pages. It's throwing signal 6 abort errors all over the place. When I try to update it it spews all of this nonsense to the console: !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy " (2017-05-21) # (and others, updated later) # These old versions of toolchain packages (binutils, gcc, glibc) are no # longer officially supported and are not suitable for general use. Using # these packages can result in build failures (and possible breakage) for # many packages, and may leave your system vulnerable to known security # exploits. # If you still use one of these old toolchain packages, please upgrade (and # switch the compiler / the binutils) ASAP. If you need them for a specific # (isolated) use case, feel free to unmask them on your system. - sys-libs/glibc-2.30-r9::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) - sys-libs/glibc-2.25-r11::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) - sys-libs/glibc-2.19-r2::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) (dependency required by "www-client/chromium-91.0.4472.10::gentoo" [ebuild]) For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. Obviously this is a crisis level problem and I'm like (!!) -- The vaccine is a LIE. #EggCrisis White is the new Kulak. Powers are not rights.
Re: [gentoo-user] Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!!
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:46:04 -0500, Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote: > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:37 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: > > Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote: > > > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 15:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: > > > > - sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r7::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) > > > This is the current stable version of glibc, which would satisfy the > > > ebuild. You have it masked manually, it would seem. > > > > > > Did you leave yourself a comment as to why it was masked? > > > > Well, I got 2.33 installed on me and the system does not allow that > > package to downgarde, for good reason... I masked the old version to > > stop it from bitching at me that it can't downgrade that package. > > I don't for sure whether or not glibc is supposed to be able to be > downgraded or not. If not, then it sounds like using the ~arch version > of it is biting you in the backside. A cautionary tale about not using > the ~arch keyword for mission-critical packages unless the situation is > dire. The chromium-90.* ebuilds apply a patch to work with glibc-2.3.3, you might try that on a 91 ebuild. Read bug #769989 first. -- Neil Bothwick Our bikinis are exciting. They are simply the tops. pgpkMA2Wnpohi.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!!
Don't forget to reply to the list... I say after I forgot to change the to address on the email I just sent. On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:37 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: > Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 15:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: > > > - sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r7::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) > > This is the current stable version of glibc, which would satisfy the > > ebuild. You have it masked manually, it would seem. > > > > Did you leave yourself a comment as to why it was masked? > > Well, I got 2.33 installed on me and the system does not allow that > package to downgarde, for good reason... I masked the old version to > stop it from bitching at me that it can't downgrade that package. I don't for sure whether or not glibc is supposed to be able to be downgraded or not. If not, then it sounds like using the ~arch version of it is biting you in the backside. A cautionary tale about not using the ~arch keyword for mission-critical packages unless the situation is dire.
Re: [gentoo-user] Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!!
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:25:31 -0500, Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote: > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 15:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: > > - sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r7::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) > > This is the current stable version of glibc, which would satisfy the > ebuild. You have it masked manually, it would seem. Also, you are trying to emerge a masked ebuild of chromium: # Stephan Hartmann (2021-03-21) # Dev channel releases are only for people who # are developers or want more experimental features # and accept a more unstable release. >=www-client/chromium-91 It seems you are unwilling to accept a more unstable (aka occasionally broken) release, so you should be using version 90. -- Neil Bothwick Why is the word abbreviation so long? pgpGVf59PrhaG.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!!
On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 15:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: > - sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r7::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) This is the current stable version of glibc, which would satisfy the ebuild. You have it masked manually, it would seem. Did you leave yourself a comment as to why it was masked?
