This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
>>>>> Ulrich Drepper writes: Uli> Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes: >> glibc will definitly change in an incompatible way, e.g. the >> RPC-IPv6 code has to be fixed. Uli> As Jakub mentioned, the verson we released comes without the IPv6 Uli> stuff and is therefore copmatible with 2.1. Jakub's patch is the one Uli> I'll apply if I don't get a solution implementing IPv6 correctly in Uli> the next few days. Therefore there is really no compatibility Uli> problem. Uli> And yes, I would have wished if the public beta would have been later. Uli> But so be it. What I managed to do before was to add all the binary Uli> incompatible changes before the release (and Bruno had the CTYPE At least all you're aware of for now ;-) Uli> changes also ready in time). This beta was the reason I could spend Uli> so much time on glibc lately (and believe, it was a lot). I had that impression already and agree that's good ;-) Uli> So, if you have anything you think is wrong let me know now. My todo Uli> list is almost empty. There are not many solvable PRs left, I know of Uli> no critical problems myself, there will be cleanups and various Uli> profiling measurements. AFAIK the only problems are RPC-IPv6 (which you took care of) and getipnodebyaddr. >> This has caused already in the past some problems, e.g. the usage >> of an early test release of glibc 2.0 on PowerPC and Alpha (we changed >> a serious bug and introduced an incompatibility in the final 2.0). Uli> Yes, and this would be done here as well *if* it's necessary. It's a Uli> risk the people making the distribution here in house took. Good to hear that those folks are aware of the problems. So, the only;-) problem are the users which aren't really informed about this. >> I do know that this means lots of testers and testing - which I do >> appreciate. Uli> It especially means compatibility testing which hasn't been done by Uli> anybody here so far in large scale. Just assume there wouldn't be Uli> this wide-scale call for testing and 2.2 comes out without binary Uli> compatibility with 2.2. It's better to do it this way. I would wish Uli> everybody would do these technology previews (similar to our Rawhide Uli> stuff) and even test releases. If you take a look at the announcement Uli> you'll see that it contains a warning similar to the one we have in Uli> configure. It discourages people from using it on production But that's about the distribution itself - and not that the distribution uses alpha software. Uli> machines. I think this is as clear as it can get. Thanks for your comments, Andreas P.S. RedHat is not the only one doing it - Caldera might also do this (but the article was withdrawn soon afterwards, I don't know if they're really up to this now). -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |