This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Remove union wait
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:59:56 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Remove union wait
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56BE07C8 dot 40205 at redhat dot com> <20160307225511 dot 093E92C3BF5 at topped-with-meat dot com> <56DEA20E dot 3040907 at redhat dot com> <56FBBCAF dot 7090806 at redhat dot com> <20160330223228 dot 6A7382C3C54 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 03/30/2016 06:32 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think the blocker here is clear consensus that a one-cycle removal of a
> feature from the API without any broadcasted deprecation period is OK.
> I'd like some other senior maintainers to explicitly agree with that before
> we go ahead based just on the direct review of the change itself.
IMO a one-cycle removal is OK IFF a distribution has gone through a full build
cycle with the deprecation patch applied and found no serious problems in the
existing corpus of package sources.
An example would be if Fedora Rawhide ran 4-6 months with the patch and nothing
fell out of the rebuild cycle.
Given that we have not done done a build cycle in a distribution I think the
most conservative step is a staged removal. I think your original instinct is
the best way forward e.g. removal in 2.25.
Please remember to write notes under 2.24's packaging changes:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.24#Packaging_Changes
Which detail the changes that packages need to make to migrate away from the
old interface to the new interface.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.