This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:48:07 -0600 Adam Conrad <adconrad@0c3.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:13:54AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > On 06/05/13 00:46, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > Essentially. I suppose the false positives are probably only a minor > > inconvenience as far as Linux distros go, given most rebuild their > > entire system when a glibc update happens and others can rebuild the > > small number of packages that will expose this. But this can not be so > > readily handled with third party software. > > Debian and Ubuntu (at least) certainly don't rebuild the world on every > toolchain bump, we allow things to rebuild organically as new package > versions are uploaded for other reasons. > > If there's a simple/sane programmatic way for us to find everything that > would be affected by (4), so we can rebuild it (and declare a package > relationship between the new glibc and the old versions of packages that > it's now known to break), that's cool, but if it's just tripping over > breakages in the dark for a few years until it's all rebuilt, I'm not > sure that's an acceptable option for us. That's where we come in. When your entire user base builds everything from source you catch these issues early. -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |