Mailing List Archive: Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!!

Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!!

Apr 22, 2021, 12:09 PM

Post #1 of 5 (338 views)

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 "<sys-libs/glibc-2.33" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
request:
- sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r8::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
- sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r7::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
- sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r6::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
- sys-libs/glibc-2.31-r7::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
# Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> (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: Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!! [ In reply to ]

matthewdconnell at gmail

Apr 22, 2021, 12:25 PM

Post #2 of 5 (338 views)

Permalink

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?

Re: Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!! [ In reply to ]

neil at digimed

Apr 22, 2021, 12:55 PM

Post #3 of 5 (338 views)

Permalink

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 <sultan@gentoo.org> (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?

Re: Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!! [ In reply to ]

matthewdconnell at gmail

Apr 22, 2021, 1:46 PM

Post #4 of 5 (338 views)

Permalink

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: Chromium: GIGAFOOBAR!!! [ In reply to ]

neil at digimed

Apr 22, 2021, 2:42 PM

Post #5 of 5 (338 views)

Permalink

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.