This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: 2.11.1: Call for testing
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 03:13:31PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > FYI, Debian is using the following commits on top of eglibc 2.10
> > (version 2.11 is far from ready except on a few architectures) without
> > known problems:
> >
> > commit 22bdb3aa5b2cd760fd3bf1ee6c46c61e23457876
> > commit 488e337a17866ebdb9ca6a07f91fc9fcf9f1c3db
> > commit 8d7c09b162cd1687e21549f9aaaa3d4a9b39735c
>
> Please cite commits in "git log --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit" format
> so everybody doesn't have to look them up.
Ok, will do next time.
> 22bdb3a Add missing Linux MADV_* definitions.
> 488e337 Avoid warnings in CPU_* macros when using const bitsets.
> 8d7c09b Properly recover from shorter read.
>
> These are 2.11 branch commits, so I take it you aren't saying anything
> about what should go into 2.11 except that you think those three commits
> are already fine based on your 2.10-based testing.
Yes, there are fine in 2.10, but I also would like to see them in 2.11.
If they are not in 2.11, we are going to apply them anyway.
> If you are interested in maintaining a community 2.10 branch for
> as long as Debian is using it, please post about that separately.
> I don't think anyone else here is actively maintaining 2.10 now.
>
I am currently not really interesting in that, as the plan is to switch
to 2.11 soonish, that is when all testsuite and important reported
regressions are fixed. Packages are in preparation, they works fine on
x86_64 and i386, but I have seen regressions in the testsuite on other
architectures I have tested (armel, ia64, sparc and s390). I haven't
investigated them yet, so I can't really give more details.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net