This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- From: Steven Munroe <munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot comcom>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at foss dot arm dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:48:25 -0500
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <559606DB dot 6070600 at redhat dot com> <CAAHN_R2bjFU29Q7TTV2AHxEw-UN_RNHWrs3URKu+Ejq+=LUgLA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5596AED1 dot 8060203 at redhat dot com> <559AA805 dot 3020904 at foss dot arm dot com> <1436206143 dot 19117 dot 14 dot camel at oc7878010663> <1436220236 dot 22407 dot 8 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain>
- Reply-to: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 00:03 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 13:09 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote:
> > It takes at least two to be constructive.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Some like argue perfection or
> > require convincing everyone (not just GLIBC community members) to change
> > what they are already doing to a more "correct" way.
>
> I don't understand this sentence.
>
Sorry lost in translation ... Said more plainly.
Have you looked at what is going on PHP, OpenSSL, Boost, FFmpeg. ... and
the thousands of other packages that make up a complete distro?
I suspect you will not be happy with what you find.
So if you think __builtin_cpu_supports() is a bad solution and they
should be using STD_GNU_IFUNC then you need to convince them.
And __builtin_cpu_supports exist and has existed for Intel in compilers
including GCC for a while. So you have to convince them.
Arguing with me, will not help you achieve your goal.
Just being pragmatic ...
> > Like saying users
> > are stupid and they doing it wrong is not constructive.
>
> Agreed on the "are stupid", but saying that they are doing something
> that is not something glibc wants to support is not something that's
> necessarily bad.
>
But they you should be talking to them, explaining to them, convincing
them.
Holding a platform maintainer hostage does not help you.
> > Straw-man, slipper slope, moral hazards argument should be excluded,
> > because there there no rational response to a an irrational argument.
> >
> > If we don't restrain this behavior, we allow individuals to block
> > platform specific patches indefinitely.
>
> That goes both ways. You can apply the same concerns to the other way
> around. We need to find rules that are acceptable for all sides.
>