At Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:50:19 -0400 (EDT), Jack Howarth wrote: > I thought the plan was to simply push glibc 2.3.1 into sid, no? > I have been running the glibc 2.3 debian cvs source patches > and glibc cvs (built almost daily) on debian ppc sid for about > a month now. I have seen no issues running gcc 2.95.4/glibc 2.2.5 > built binaries under it. I would vote to simply do the push into > sid and fix the breakage. Other than problems with glibc not passing > make check on some arches (which can be captured by just letting those > offending builds go into sid), the only real issue left should be > a bit of libgcc-compat code on arches like mips. I have already > posted the outline of a patch for them to fix that... > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200210/msg00154.html > > In short, I doubt we will get sufficient testing on problematic > arches unless we take the leap and push into sid. However I would > make sure that the findsyms perl script I wrote has been run on the > debian sid package archives for any arches which we have to create a > libgcc-compat for to make sure our list of libgcc symbols is complete. > I'm not sure that is the case for mips yet for example. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200209/msg00164.html
I want to know mips has this problem (buildd tell us the answer, I hope). If so, I agree we should fix as you said. -- gotom
