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: Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, munroesj at us dot ibm dot com, 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>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:55:13 -0700
- 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> <52E94FDF dot 9020003 at redhat dot com> <20140129193947 dot GU15976 at 0c3 dot net> <52EA8780 dot 6070106 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:10:24AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Carlos and his team have a set of constraints they have to work
> within. Re-versioning the symbols or using a newer glibc do not fit
> those constraints.
I'm going to go ahead and point out the obvious here. It's pretty
arrogant to suggest that Carlos is the only person who has any imposed
constraints, and that the rest of us should all have to live with his.
I absolutely understand why you might have frozen on a specific glibc
version for your upcoming release, and why it would be (I agree) awful
to have it mismatched between architectures.
None of that has anything to do with the symbol versions, however, or
the failure to participate in the conversation a couple of months ago.
You can ship your 2.17 (which has a ton of stuff backported from 2.19
for powerpc64le) and version all the symbols @2.18. There's exactly
zero reason why this can't be done. If there's a management constraint
preventing this, I'd like to humbly suggest that your management is
wrong.
We all have real business constraints (time, and the waste thereof
being the most likely in the cases of SUSE and Ubuntu) that make some
options more appealing than others and, honestly, I might just be in
Roland's "screw everyone, no one can have what they want, we'll follow
the letter of the law" opinion on fixing it at 2.19, if it wasn't for
the bit where SUSE and Ubuntu have effectively built, well, everything
based on a promise late last year from IBM that they wouldn't be making
a change past that point.
I agree that we all took the risk that there might have been unforseen
ABI changes imposed externally for unavoidable reasons, but this one is
neither external nor unavoidable.
... Adam