Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 02/04/2018 12:21:13 AM, Bill Kenworthy wrote:

On 04/02/18 01:34, Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> On 02/03/2018 04:11:33 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2018, 10:50:53 CET schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
>> > On 02/03/2018 06:54:06 AM, Dale wrote:
>> > > 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

1. do another backup
2. take your last good binary package and unpack it in the root
directory - it is an "image" of that package as it sits in the file  
system.
3. rebuild that version of glibc by overiding emerge - comment out  
"die
"aborting to save your system" in  
/usr/portage/eclass/toolchain-glibc.eclass


I have done this a couple of times with gcc (when manual deletes have
gone rogue) but it should work with glibc as you have not recompiled  
any

new packages.



Many thanks Bil,
Helmut

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Neil Bothwick]

On 3 February 2018 17:34:11 GMT, Helmut Jarausch  wrote:
>On 02/03/2018 04:11:33 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2018, 10:50:53 CET schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
>> > On 02/03/2018 06:54:06 AM, Dale wrote:
>> > > 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?
>> >
>> > I've tried to binary emerge my previous version. This didn't
>succeed
>> > since
>> > the ebuild disallows downgrading glibc.
>> >
>> > Luckily I had backuped my system just 20 hours ago.
>> 
>> Having up-to-date backups is always good :) .
>> 
>> > Does anybody know how to restore ONLY those files which are
>> > more recent on the target file system.
>> > (My whole back is 124 Gb large which is a lot to copy back)
>> 
>> If you can access the backups like a normal file system, then using  
>> rsync with
>> the --update option looks to me like what you want:
>> 
>> "-u, --updateskip files that are newer on the  
>> receiver".
>> 
>
>High Marc,
>I think I need the opposite :
>   only update files which are newer on the receiver
>
>Thanks,
>Helmut

Run the rsync in the opposite direction with - n as well as - u. That should 
give you a list of files that are newer on the live system. 
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Bill Kenworthy]

On 04/02/18 01:34, Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> On 02/03/2018 04:11:33 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2018, 10:50:53 CET schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
>> > On 02/03/2018 06:54:06 AM, Dale wrote:
>> > > 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

1. do another backup
2. take your last good binary package and unpack it in the root
directory - it is an "image" of that package as it sits in the file system.
3. rebuild that version of glibc by overiding emerge - comment out "die
"aborting to save your system" in /usr/portage/eclass/toolchain-glibc.eclass

I have done this a couple of times with gcc (when manual deletes have
gone rogue) but it should work with glibc as you have not recompiled any
new packages.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Marc Joliet]

Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2018, 18:34:11 CET schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
> On 02/03/2018 04:11:33 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2018, 10:50:53 CET schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
> > > On 02/03/2018 06:54:06 AM, Dale wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > 
> > > I've tried to binary emerge my previous version. This didn't succeed
> > > since
> > > the ebuild disallows downgrading glibc.
> > > 
> > > Luckily I had backuped my system just 20 hours ago.
> > 
> > Having up-to-date backups is always good :) .
> > 
> > > Does anybody know how to restore ONLY those files which are
> > > more recent on the target file system.
> > > (My whole back is 124 Gb large which is a lot to copy back)
> > 
> > If you can access the backups like a normal file system, then using
> > rsync with
> > the --update option looks to me like what you want:
> > 
> > "-u, --updateskip files that are newer on the
> > receiver".
> 
> High Marc,
> I think I need the opposite :
>only update files which are newer on the receiver

Ah, sorry, I misread that (in your case it wouldn't make any sense, either).  
Although in that case, shouldn't normal rsync do what you want?  It won't 
update files that haven't changed since the backup (determined by default by 
comparing file size and mtime, see rsync(1)).

> Thanks,
> Helmut

HTH
-- 
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 02/03/2018 04:11:33 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:

Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2018, 10:50:53 CET schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
> On 02/03/2018 06:54:06 AM, Dale wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I've tried to binary emerge my previous version. This didn't succeed
> since
> the ebuild disallows downgrading glibc.
>
> Luckily I had backuped my system just 20 hours ago.

Having up-to-date backups is always good :) .

> Does anybody know how to restore ONLY those files which are
> more recent on the target file system.
> (My whole back is 124 Gb large which is a lot to copy back)

If you can access the backups like a normal file system, then using  
rsync with

the --update option looks to me like what you want:

"-u, --updateskip files that are newer on the  
receiver".




High Marc,
I think I need the opposite :
  only update files which are newer on the receiver

Thanks,
Helmut

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Marc Joliet]

Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2018, 10:50:53 CET schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
> On 02/03/2018 06:54:06 AM, Dale wrote:
> > 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? 
> 
> I've tried to binary emerge my previous version. This didn't succeed
> since
> the ebuild disallows downgrading glibc.
> 
> Luckily I had backuped my system just 20 hours ago.

Having up-to-date backups is always good :) .

> Does anybody know how to restore ONLY those files which are
> more recent on the target file system.
> (My whole back is 124 Gb large which is a lot to copy back)

If you can access the backups like a normal file system, then using rsync with 
the --update option looks to me like what you want:

"-u, --updateskip files that are newer on the receiver".

> Many thanks for a hint,
> Helmut

HTH
-- 
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 02/03/2018 06:54:06 AM, Dale wrote:

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? 

I've tried to binary emerge my previous version. This didn't succeed  
since

the ebuild disallows downgrading glibc.

Luckily I had backuped my system just 20 hours ago.

Does anybody know how to restore ONLY those files which are
more recent on the target file system.
(My whole back is 124 Gb large which is a lot to copy back)

Many thanks for a hint,
Helmut

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Dale]

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  wrote:
>>> With glibc-2.27 installed I cannot compile anything, since most
>>> packages try to include 
>>> 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

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[John Campbell]

On 02/02/2018 01:07 PM, Floyd Anderson wrote:
> Hi Helmut,
> 
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 18:34:23 +0100
> Helmut Jarausch  wrote:
>> With glibc-2.27 installed I cannot compile anything, since most
>> packages try to include 
>> 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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Floyd Anderson]

Hi Helmut,

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 18:34:23 +0100
Helmut Jarausch  wrote:
With glibc-2.27 installed I cannot compile anything, since most 
packages try to include 

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. 



Link:
 - [1] 


Good luck, bleeding edge(r) and thank you for the warning.


--
Regards,
floyd

[gentoo-user] Heads Up - glibc-2.27 breaks my system

[Helmut Jarausch]

With glibc-2.27 installed I cannot compile anything, since most  
packages try to include 

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!

(I know that glibc-2.27 is masked, but I didn't expect it to be bomb  
like that)

Helmut