Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Too late: Please, do not update glibc to 2.11 too fast...

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Too late: Please, do not update glibc to 2.11 too fast...
  • Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:24:23 -0800

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Orgis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> glibc-2.11 has been released recently and you might be tempted to update
> our spell. Well, .. oh ... fricked: Ladislav did it already. Hm. Uhm. Well.
> What I was about to say:
>
> 1. I am working on updating the SGML Alpha port. That means adding the
> spin-off glibc-ports for non-x86 architecture and an assload of patches, by
> way of the gentoo patchset, to battle against the ignorance of glibc
> developers towards such unimportant architectures like ARM (which is not
> officially an arch supported/maintained by glibc upstream anymore!).
>
> 2. glibc-ports people need to catch up with funny stuff in latest glibc to
> make a matching release of glibc-ports-2.11 . They are not there yet, as I
> see from reading the libc-ports list.
>
> 3. Likewise, as even glibc-ports won't manage to provide working Alpha
> support in release version 2.11, I depend on the gentoo patchset (which
> largely is the debian patchset, as alpha fixes are concerned) to get a
> working glibc at all. The friendly gentoo guy said he is going to check out
> glibc 2.11 in the near future, but, well, it's not been that long that
> 2.10.1 works.
>
> 4. One might indeed consider ditching vanilla glibc as upstream. Eglibc is
> getting some time in the sunshine now that debian switches to it... might
> be reasonable to use that as a buffer between our users and the not always
> too human-friendly upstream actions. I mean, I am a bit frightened by the
> kind of patches that are needed to transform vanilla glibc into something
> barely usable. And indeed the lack of stable release series... like, with
> bugfixes and minimal other hacking, is not nice for something that
> essential.
>
>
> Anyhow, I popped in to tell that I am close to getting our alpha port
> working again with glibc-2.10.1 ... and now see that that is already p0wn3d
> by 2.11 entering the grimoire. The kind of discussions on libc-ports
> suggests that it is non-trivial to follow the changes in glibc... Now we
> could have a debate over whether such esoteric non-x86 setups should hinder
> the progress of the important SMGL world... or figure out a way to make it
> work nicely together.
> Personally, I would think it fair to wait for glibc-ports to appear before
> upgrading to a new glibc version. glibc + glibc-ports is what earlier
> versions of glibc represented.
>
> Since there already is alpha-specific code needed in the spell scripts (as
> for x86-64, too); it might be not too bad to use version 2.10.1 for that
> arch and 2.11 on others. What bothers me is that that important spell
> already is cluttered, with NTPL and non-NPTL, CVS version (do we really
> need that?)... then various if branches for SMGL_COMPAT_ARCH ...
>
> It would already help to drop non-NPTL and CVS ... perhaps then I can
> better stand having only the multi-version switch based on architecture.
> So, who uses those two options? Do we support kernel 2.4 (for non-NPTL)?
>
> Flames, anyone? Man, it's late here... Perhaps I shouldn't even send this
> babbling, but when I already spent all the time deep into the night to
> write it... trying to get that fricking bleeding edge glibc crap to work...
> gah, I'm drifting off again...
>
>
> Alrighty then,

I'd say just add a specific version for your architecture and wrap it in
DETAILS in an architecture check.

- -sandalle

- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkr43OYACgkQHXt9dKjv3WHH5gCgnaJNg78G7NP2jfTF+xvrQfyi
2UoAoJypcOAPXwbgxTq4dbdNY2tH5Nv9
=fKGN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page