On 10/12/2015 08:49 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 29/09/15 06:54, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On 09/26/2015 06:24 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> Furthermore, the function in question returns EINVAL in other similar >>> cases–e.g., when libc 2.22 loads LC_COLLATE data from libc 2.21. >> >> If you change this particular case to EINVAL, what does the user see >> as a result of this change? Do they get a non-zero exit code from >> `localedef --list-archive` along with an error written out to stderr? >> >> This is the kind of change I'm expecting. If we are removing an assertion, >> we should be replacing it with something meaningful and verifying that >> meaningful change. >> >> You need not change any of the other cases you've found that return EINVAL, >> we can update those incrementally, but for this one change you're making >> we should fix it as best we can. >> > > If I am reading this correctly, the change to from an abort to EINVAL > would be fine if it is accompanied by a change to localedef > --list-archive. Is that correct? > > A solution to this would be great given we now run into this assert with > locale archives built with different glibc builds along the 2.22 release > branch.
Yes. I'll make some general comments in the thread you started about the patch, rather than here. Cheers, Carlos.
