On 07/31/2014 07:41 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
To expand on this just a bit, the s/390 ABI break was done by the
s/390 glibc port maintainers and was done intentionally. This wasn't
a "oops, we accidentally broke the ABI" bug. It was something the
s/390 maintainers decided was of minimal concern and
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 23:05:21 +0530,
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
the latest commit. I've been doing regular rebases for a while now
(almost a year AFAICT) and IIRC we have had just one serious problem
last week where i686 boxes got bricked. In the end it was found to be
a gcc bug that misco
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:19:49 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:41:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
> > > There is however one change that the s/390
> > > folks will find painful - s/390 broke ABI in 2.19 without a
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:41:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
> > There is however one change that the s/390
> > folks will find painful - s/390 broke ABI in 2.19 without a proper
> > justification and that is now going to be reverted in 2.20 (an
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> However the previous problem(s -- multiple) was glibc using
>> non-Rawhide for integration testing, especially just while we were
>> trying to stablise Fedora for a
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:03:45AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Yes. My concern is that glibc is using Rawhide as their continuous
> integration sandbox to shake out bugs as opposed to doing it elsewhere and
> just taking care of integration of releases when they are ready. If this
> viewed as
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> However the previous problem(s -- multiple) was glibc using
> non-Rawhide for integration testing, especially just while we were
> trying to stablise Fedora for a release:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:13:44PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> The fact that a core library that's stability is critical to the
> distribution as a whole doesn't bother to adhere to this and while
> having gone through the hoops of putting in a feature change basically
> then proceeded to comple
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:03:45AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem with that approach is that lots of bugs go unnoticed until
> > very late in rawhide, resulting in those bugs being caught and fixed
> > on
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:16:30PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > * Rawhide tracks glibc master.
>> > * Fedora release is branched from Rawhide.
>> > * glibc release is made upstream.
>> > * Fedora branch is rebased on glibc upstream rele
Hi
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> The problem with that approach is that lots of bugs go unnoticed until
> very late in rawhide, resulting in those bugs being caught and fixed
> only post-release. ABI. That is, any ABI breakages that happen
> are usually bugs.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:36:34PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > The changes in the rebase should be minor since we've
> > > been tracking master the whole time.
> > I remember a similar process causing problems in Rawhide earlier and Jared
> > Smith talking with the glibc team to ensure that
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 03:16:30PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > * Rawhide tracks glibc master.
> > * Fedora release is branched from Rawhide.
> > * glibc release is made upstream.
> > * Fedora branch is rebased on glibc upstream release
> > to include ABI guarantees.
> > * Fedora release goes
Hi
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I expect this to be the process forever going forward:
>
> * Rawhide tracks glibc master.
> * Fedora release is branched from Rawhide.
> * glibc release is made upstream.
> * Fedora branch is rebased on glibc upstream release
> to in
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:18:57AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I expect this to be the process forever going forward:
>
> * Rawhide tracks glibc master.
> * Fedora release is branched from Rawhide.
> * glibc release is made upstream.
> * Fedora branch is rebased on glibc upstream release
> t
Fedora,
This is a reminder that the glibc team will be rebasing
glibc in F21 to match glibc 2.20.
The plan remains largely as was written here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GLIBC220
Only glibc 2.20 has ABI guarantees, and therefore we
will move to 2.20 before F21 goes to GA to ensure th
16 matches
Mail list logo
