[Bug libc/11878] 'glibc' build documentation is apparently incomplete

["jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11878

Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #4 from Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-18 14:55:51 UTC ---
Whatever people may have said in the past, I would welcome reports of specific
build bugs in Bugzilla, presuming that they follow the instructions we provide
at

http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/bugs.html

about what should go in a bug report.  If there is difficulty in providing
"some way to replicate the problem", asking on libc-help is the way to go.  The
present report does not contain that information, and so is not a valid bug
report that can meaningfully be fixed.  The present report does not seem to be
describing any particular build failure at all.  Please file each separate
build problem in a separate well-defined bug report.

glibc is not a Red Hat project; it is a GNU project under the auspices of the
Free Software Foundation maintained and developed by a community of people most
of whom do not work for Red Hat.  I don't know why you are referring to Red Hat
here, but if you have problems with a Red Hat product please report them to Red
Hat.

We're planning to move the glibc FAQ to the wiki.  I'd be inclined to say we
should also close bug 333 at the same time, and officially say that build bug
reports in Bugzilla are fine if they have all the expected information - with
an explanation in the FAQ of what is relevant and of known build issues (such
as compilers defaulting to i386 rather than more recent x86; trying to build
for a ports architecture without the ports add-on; building with certain
distribution compilers that default to -fstack-protector; all of these should
of course be detected by configure, but the FAQ is the place for longer
explanations of how to fix them); the FAQ would also discuss how builds of
low-level system libraries such as glibc are intrinsically more complicated
than those of almost all other software.  But where build failures result from
old compilers, linkers etc., I think we should also be more active in
increasing the minimum versions required by configure (rather than trying to
work around deficiencies in older versions).  Roland, Carlos, Ryan - what do
you think?

Abuse of contributors is not acceptable in Bugzilla or elsewhere in glibc or
other free software development.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.