binutils upgrade (to 2.15.92.0.2-r3) causes gcc to segfault

Sipi · Guru Joined: 03 Apr 2003 Posts: 406 Location: Hungary

Yes, but if not unmrging it, old symlinks will point to the bad ones, so it is highly possible that you will use the borked binutils.

Sipi

zaanpenguin · Apprentice Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Posts: 203

Sipi · Guru Joined: 03 Apr 2003 Posts: 406 Location: Hungary

Sipi · Guru Joined: 03 Apr 2003 Posts: 406 Location: Hungary

Yes, it contains the symlinks, but not the live environment variables. These should be generated only if emerge it via Portage, but simply untarring it will not make the correct /etc/env.d entries.
Moreover, this old binutils does not have multislot feature, so you can not use binutils-config to switch to it.

Sipi

Kirth · n00b Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6

Sorry, as the hoster of these files I have to point this out:

THIS IS A NASTY HACK FIX TO GET A SYSTEM GOING AGAIN.

We are in no way proposing that it's all singing all dancing and follows everyones recommened practices.

This complaints about not having multislot features and so forth... so what ?
It gets a system from total b0rked to being able to re-emerge a working binutils as it should be.
The re-emerge will over write the env.d files.

Instead of going on about this, howabout actually providing something constructive ? (a r4 binutils would be nice)

WaterSoul · Apprentice Joined: 31 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

Does anyone have a binutils binary amd64 package that can actually be installed with emerge bintutils -k ? (instead of unmerge, tar and editing env files as described earlier)

zaanpenguin · Apprentice Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Posts: 203

Kirth · n00b Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6

amd64 version being cooked up as we "write" however, edit env.d files ? where ? when ? why ? lol

as for emerge -k *shrug* this is a hack fix, if you too lazy to type the commands
I'm too lazy to make the -k binary

[okok]
AMD64 binary package up, but as emerge -k version

kimchi_sg · Advocate Joined: 26 Nov 2004 Posts: 2968

Discotizer · =sys-devel/binutils-2.15.92.0.2-r3

zaanpenguin · Apprentice Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Posts: 203

kimchi_sg · Advocate Joined: 26 Nov 2004 Posts: 2968

[removed - emerge -k wins the day]

Discotizer · Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:02 pm Post subject:

Mystilleef · Guru Joined: 27 Apr 2003 Posts: 561 Location: Earth

Kirth · n00b Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6

ok, I'm confused as to how these files will get missed (from the tgz that is).

1. We untar the tgz to /, installing a binary version of 2.15.92.02-rX
note: even with the X all the files are in the same location and called the same

2. We mask the r3 broken code.

3. We emerge the SAME version of binutils that the tar file is. This writes files in the EXACT same place as the tar did.

Care to explain to me how a file will be "missed" on an uninstall ?

And, for godsakes it's a HACK. You'd be better of bitching that people are putting completely toasted packages into portage rather than complaining about a 100% we-know-it's-wrong hack

Personally, when I have people yelling and need stuff fixed NOW, I dont care too much about the rules

kimchi_sg · Advocate Joined: 26 Nov 2004 Posts: 2968

Sipi · Guru Joined: 03 Apr 2003 Posts: 406 Location: Hungary

Just wanted to tell in this jungle-buggy that the method (either with --usepkg or simply untarring and deleting /etc/env.d/binutils and 05binutils file) works.

After installing binary version, you can emerge the 2.15.92.0.2-r1 version with this. It will work.
For safety, you shold emerge itself again.

Than, there if you not emerged with --usepkg, you can safely delete some files, just look in the tar file for older files.

Regards,
Sipi

Xeen · n00b Joined: 01 Oct 2004 Posts: 23

masseya · Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:17 pm Post subject:

kimchi_sg · Advocate Joined: 26 Nov 2004 Posts: 2968

[side note]
Ironically, I just checked which version of binutils I was running, and it seems that the binutils curse has not affected me.

Sipi · Guru Joined: 03 Apr 2003 Posts: 406 Location: Hungary

Just a quick note: it is very funny if someone takes the developers as the guilty.

If some has maketest as FEATURES, and even see that binutils has a test USE flag - and maybe he uses the "unstable" branch... so, he should use the testtools, too.

Using any testtools of the above, binutils failed to emerge, since tests failed horribly. I know, it failed for me. I didn't care and installed it anyway.

Was the test borked? Yes.
Does it means that the binary is mailfunction? Yes.
Did I install it anyway? Yes.
Is it a miracle that my system failed? No...
Was I am a monkey? Yes...

So, while it should be irritating that these big mistakes shoul dbe in Portage tree, it is clear that 1) it is an unstable package, 2) there are testing tools to see if it will break or not.

Best regards,
Sipi

zaanpenguin · Apprentice Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Posts: 203

Sipi · Guru Joined: 03 Apr 2003 Posts: 406 Location: Hungary

That's true, it was not hardmasked.

But hey, anyway, FEATURES="maketest" is not a bad thing to try

BTW, thatt's true that it was a serious problem.
But that is true, too, that the solution took VERY little time!

I love Gentoo...

Sipi

n3x · Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:25 pm Post subject:

EDIT:: Heh - just kidding

figured it out for my own dumb self.

Stupid question, but :

grunch · n00b Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 8 Location: Wisconsin, USA