This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, munroesj at us dot ibm dot com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:23:12 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1391008726 dot 16702 dot 105 dot camel at spokane1 dot rchland dot ibm dot com> <52E92E7C dot 1040707 at redhat dot com> <20140129172158 dot GT15976 at 0c3 dot net> <20140129181118 dot 9F85174441 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> The proposed change is contrary to longstanding explicit policy. But so is
> that status quo that Adam is asking to maintain. IMHO there were very good
> reasons we had that policy, and one of those was keeping the libc community
> out of bicker wars between distributions that chomped at the bit and
> released something before it was declared official by the community.
>
> I think we should just stick to the policy, so it's GLIBC_2.19 because
> that's the first glibc release that will support the configuration. Adam
> and Steven both deserve what they get. The policy was established and they
> ignored it when they started distributing binaries for a glibc ABI that was
> never part of an actual glibc release. That's the only way to be fair to
> everyone (by making nobody happy).
>
> But at the end of the day, these things have to be in the hands of the
> machine maintainers. Steven is one of the powerpc maintainers and Adam is
> not. Steven has an obligation to do what is right and proper as a GNU
> maintainer concerned with all users and the maintenance burdens on the
> project, independent of his role at IBM and his concern with users of IBM's
> products. But I can't make that judgement about powerpc users at large.
FWIW, I had to do the same for x32. My initial x32 port was for
glibc 2.14. After x32 was checked into glibc 2.16, I had to recompile
all my x32 binaries to get the proper symbol version. It was a pain.
But I survived it.
--
H.J.