Description of problem: Complete Rawhide should be rebuilt (or even tried to rebuild) against gcc4/ glibc 2.3.4, because there are many packages having problems with one or both of the components listed above. I still tracked out a few problems as bug #150982, #150984, #150992, #150998, #151029, #151032, #151050, #151052, #151053 and #151055 - but I think, there are lots of packages more. And as of today, it seems so, that many packages need to be patched for gcc4.
Bug #151098 and #153968 are currently on my personal list, but there are many more.
Can you please retest this with current rawhide and report what exactly needs rebuilding?
That's a very good question, I don't have currently the time to rebuild the complete Rawhide. The time, I opened this bug report, glibc-2.3.4 < -15 had a more strict behaviour, which was changed by Jakub with -15 again; see glibc rpm changelog: * Sat Mar 19 2005 Jakub Jelinek <jakub> 2.3.4-15 - update from CVS [...] - with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=*, avoid defining read and a bunch of others as function-like macros, there are too many broken programs out there [...] As of today, I only can sort out the packages which were rebuilt successfully against the "new" combination of glibc 2.3.4/gcc 4.0.0 introduced in March, that excludes 720 out of 1011 packages. So remaining are 291 packages, which were not rebuilt after March 8th, 2005 - but this doesn't mean, that all of these 291 packages aren't rebuildable. a) We can wait for the next complete rebuild of Rawhide and see what happens b) We could try to rebuild all 291 packages from my list (I only counted them by last rebuilding date in Rawhide; so maybe there are also noarch pkgs) Choose, what you want - if a), close this bugreport with Rawhide, if b) try to rebuild the packages of the attached list... ;-)
Created attachment 114056 [details] Packages in Rawhide not rebuilt after March 8th, 2005
Engineering management said they will NOT do a mass rebuild at this point. File individual bugs for each package that should be rebuilt, and only if it meets something like one of these criteria: * it demonstrates that it fixes something * it fails to build now (in which case it should be fixed and rebuilt for reproducibility) * if a rebuild changes deps