On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:20:23 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc RemoveThis @arcor.de> wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 06:29:40 +0200, J.O. Aho <user RemoveThis @example.net> wrote:
>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>> I'm getting portage package masked errors. It looks like there's a
>>>> new version of gcc unmasked (4.3.2) but is calling for a glibc which
>>>> is masked.
>>>>
>>>> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r2" have been
>>>> masked.
>>>> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
>>>> request:
>>>> - sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
>>>> - sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r1 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
>>>> - sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
>>>> - sys-libs/glibc-2.8_p20080602-r1 (masked by: package.mask)
>>>> - sys-libs/glibc-2.8_p20080602 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
>>>> - sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
>>
>>> echo "=sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r2 ~amd64" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
>>
>> I tried that and the build failed. I had to unmask
>> sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2 to get something to build.
>>
>> I'd like to know why there's no longer a 'stable' amd64 glibc ebuild.
>What I'm seeing here is that 2.8_p20080602-r1 is stable for AMD64.
>Perhaps it got added today though, not sure. But it's stable now 
Now what I'm seeing is that gcc is no longer requiring a masked glibc.
I commented out my package.keywords glibc ~amd64 line to test what you
reported and now emerge wants to revert to glibc 2.6.1.
Fine with me. I don't want unstable glibc or gcc packages.
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux