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: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net>
- 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 23:43:02 -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> <20140131035513 dot GL15976 at 0c3 dot net>
On 01/30/14 20:55, Adam Conrad wrote:
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 certainly didn't say that and I certainly wasn't implying that others
don't have their own constraints they have to work within. I merely
stated that Carlos & his team have a set of constraints.
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.
It certainly does impact symbol versioning. As to the conversation or
lack of participation by Red Hat a few months ago, I can't really
comment on that other than to say it wasn't something on *my* radar at
the time and thus *I* didn't even notice the thread.
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.
Management may be wrong, but that's irrelevant. The constraints on
Carlos and his team are what they are.
Jeff