Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/31/14 12:24, Brooks Moses wrote:
>>
>>
>> My assumption at this point is that there is _no_ such purely technical
>> argument.  Carlos and Jeff have implied that RedHat's team is under
>> constraints that would prohibit doing so, and have implied that these
>> are for "management" reasons rather than "technical" reasons.  As I have
>> no connection to their team, I am free to speculate on what those might
>> be; one that IMO carries reasonable weight is that breaking the "you
>> need a glibc 2.18 or later package to provide symbols of 2.18 or later"
>> invariant will confuse any users or support teams that run into a
>> problem with a 2.18-versioned symbol and are using their 2.17 library.
>>
>> It would, I think, be good for someone from RedHat to describe a bit
>> more what precisely what their constraints _are_ and what their
>> alternate option is if the patch isn't approved, even if they are not at
>> liberty to share the reasons for those constraints or in a position to
>> debate them.
>
> Unfortunately we are not at liberty to discuss the constraints or why they
> exist.  I will say that many are pretty obvious, some less so.  I realize
> our inability to discuss them in any detail makes the entire discussion
> tougher than it needs to be.  Heavy sigh....
>

Let's assume that RedHat must use glibc 2.17 and can't move
it to glibc 2.18/2.19.   What I don't understand is why GLIBC_2.19
can't be used as symbol version in glibc 2.17.


-- 
H.J.