This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus summary around changing GLIBC PPC64 LE ABI default to 2.17
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, Steven Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>, 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>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Brooks Moses <bmoses at google dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:30:34 -0500
- Subject: Re: Consensus summary around changing GLIBC PPC64 LE ABI default to 2.17
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52EC34E1 dot 7040008 at redhat dot com> <52EC3861 dot 7010503 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpKLzTXADGiUEqfaAPU44=USKpouaWC2ReU_hzoU+FFqg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 01/31/2014 07:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> (c) Move the ABI baseline to GLIBC_2.17.
>>
>> - This is what Red Hat and IBM propose to support 2.17-based and newer
>> distributions in the PPC64 LE ecosystem.
>>
>
> Is this considered as the new policy or an exception?
I view this as an exception that is a direct result of this and other
discussions.
New ports should always aim to follow (a). It avoids all of us spending
Fridays talking about the benefits and merits of rebuilds versus symbol
porting and the risks therein.
Cheers,
Carlos.