| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gemini91
Guru
Joined: 27 Nov 2003
Posts: 317
Location: Naples, Fl
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Problem Resolved
Deleted Portage Distfiles
emerge sync
emerge glibc
emerge xorg-x11
Thank to everyone that contributed to this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pasketti
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I took a little time to cool off, and am now reinstalling. I was able to save /etc, so all I really lost was time, but I'm still a little irritated at this.
The bootstrap finished successfully, with 2.6.8.1-r1 headers, the latest stable glibc, and nptl use flag.
I should have everything back the way it was by tomorrow.
I'd still like to know how that change to glibc just got dropped into the stable branch with no testing, notice, or documentation at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cintra
Advocate
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 2111
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pasketti wrote: | I took a little time to cool off, and am now reinstalling. I was able to save /etc, so all I really lost was time, but I'm still a little irritated at this.
The bootstrap finished successfully, with 2.6.8.1-r1 headers, the latest stable glibc, and nptl use flag.
I should have everything back the way it was by tomorrow.
I'd still like to know how that change to glibc just got dropped into the stable branch with no testing, notice, or documentation at all. |
How about nptlonly?
I have 2.6.8.1 headers, glibc 2.3.4.20041102, gcc 3.4.3, gcc-config 1.3.7-r5, and both nptl and nptlonly use flags set.. my problem until I put things on hold ref. this topic's situation, is that nptl just doesn't 'install'.. and as things are working OK otherwise with development-sources 2.6.10-rc3, I'm waiting for clear advice on versions and the order of unmerge/emerge I should follow.
regards
_________________
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" W.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldTango
l33t
Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Posts: 718
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to confirm that I was able to repair the problem and my system is back to its normal operations.
Using the info provided by cca I | Code: | emerge -C linux26-headers #I did have 2 versions of theses headers installed.
emerge linux26-headers
emerge glibc
emerge gcc
emerge xorg-x11 |
I am using just the nptl flag my make.conf
I had rebuilt glibc before I realized I had 2 versions of the linux26-headers on my system. So what exactly caused this problem is unclear. but things are back to normal and running smoothly.
Also I undid prelinking as it didn't seem to do a thing to speed up my system even though it allowed me to startx with the errors still in the system. Now that the errors are fixed I have no use for it so I am going to unmerge it today.
This is pure speculation on my part, because I am just to new to linux to really give a reliable opinion.
I have another gentoo box that has recently been synced and a -uvD world done on it. After this update it also has 2 versions of the linux26-headers on it. It is using a gentoo-dev-sources-2.6.9.-r6 kernel. Now I haven't rebuilt glibc on it yet, but I have rebuilt xorg-x11 after this update to repair a problem I had with a bad use flag selection on my part. Xorg rebuilt fine and is running great.
Now my speculation is if I rebuild glibc on this box without cleaning the headers first than this relocation error will rear its ugly head. Also I seem to remember that gentoo has done some security updates in the latest kernels and this may play a role in this problem as well. So cleaning the headers first may not do a thing to get around this problem. I am debating wheather I should test my theroy or not. This box is an old PII-450 with 128M of ram and rebuilding glibc takes 12-13 hours to complete. So it could take me as long as 48 hours or more, depending on how many times I would have to rebuild glibc to test, and I am not sure I want this box down for that amount of time. So for now I am going to do nothing and if I do test it won't happen for at least to weeks.
If some one else has a more informed opinion on the cause and a soultion for this error, I would consider testing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pasketti
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cintra wrote: |
How about nptlonly?
|
I don't have that flag set. I'm using the stable branch, so nptlonly doesn't apply. Although I should probably set it for future use... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cintra
Advocate
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 2111
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Pasketti
Have to admit its all been somewhat confusing..
regards
_________________
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" W.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pasketti
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OldTango wrote: |
If some one else has a more informed opinion on the cause and a soultion for this error, I would consider testing it. |
According to this thread:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=262329
the problem was a missing "!" character.
| hybrid (in other thread) wrote: | the problem had been fixed now in th portage, that was due to a missing "!" :)
and the patch now ias applied to everything except hppa :
| Code: |
if use !hppa ; then
epatch ${FILESDIR}/2.3.3/glibc-2.3.2-propolice-guard-functions-v3.patch
cp ${FILESDIR}/2.3.3/ssp.c ${S}/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux || \
die "failed to copy ssp.c to ${S}/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/"
fi
|
so don't forget to emerge sync before reemerging glibc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmarasco
n00b
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 65
Location: Fernandina Beach, FL
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cintra wrote: |
How about nptlonly?
|
I'm using nptlonly in my use flags and it works fine for me. In case your not currently doing so, you need both nptl and nptlonly in your use flags.
I downgraded back to the stable glibc after moving to the version that you are using. I simply emerged the stable version, checked to be sure that the stable version was referenced, unmerged the unstable version, and am doing a rebuild of the system; I was in the process of recompiling my system when this bug interrupted that process. You only need to recompile any progs that were compiled using the more recent glibc that you choose to remove.
Note that the nptlonly flag does nothing in the 20040808 build of glibc. I had originally added nptl support using the 20040808 build, so that may also be the difference. However, my glibc 2.3.4.20041102 also built fine with nptl when I had it on my system.
Not sure if this is really going to help you at all?
[TO avoid confusion, the nptlonly flag does nothing for me since I downgraded to the stable glibc. It was only added when I was using the unstable release.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cintra
Advocate
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 2111
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for your clarification kmarasco
I have just taken backup of both disks prior to starting on this again tomorrow morning...
mvh
EDIT ref help also from https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=1854936#1854936 I am happy to report that NPTL is finally installed OK, the second time without nptlonly gave me the right output with # /lib/tls/libc.so.6
_________________
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" W.S.
Last edited by Cintra on Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:31 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkt
Retired Dev
Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 1250
Location: Prague, Czech republic, EU
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pasketti wrote: | | I'd still like to know how that change to glibc just got dropped into the stable branch with no testing, notice, or documentation at all. |
what ARCH are you talking about? x86? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmarasco
n00b
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 65
Location: Fernandina Beach, FL
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jkt wrote: | | Pasketti wrote: | | I'd still like to know how that change to glibc just got dropped into the stable branch with no testing, notice, or documentation at all. |
what ARCH are you talking about? x86? |
I can't explain the change to the ebuild, but I'm on x86. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cintra
Advocate
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 2111
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| c0bblers wrote: | Hi,
I've got a wee script I wrote to pick out any hardened packages but I've not got it to hand ATM (not on my linux box). It basically looks at all installed packages environment.bz2 files and pick out the ones with a hardened spec file.
Cheers,
James |
Hei c0bblers
I would certainly be interested in seeing your script when you have time..
regards
_________________
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" W.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pasketti
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkt wrote: | | Pasketti wrote: | | I'd still like to know how that change to glibc just got dropped into the stable branch with no testing, notice, or documentation at all. |
what ARCH are you talking about? x86? |
Yes, x86. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Desktop Environments
