GNU bug report logs - #30873
[PATCH core-updates 0/3] glibc 2.27

Previous Next

Full log

Message #40 received at 30873-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 30873-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#30873] [PATCH core-updates 1/3] gnu: glibc: Update to 2.27.
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:20:38 +0100

Hello Marius,

Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> “Which ones do we pick” summarizes the problem, I think.  It’s
>> upstream’s job to pick a set of changes and declare a new release.  It
>> seems to me that we’re kinda doing the glibc release manager’s job here,
>> except we lack insight compared to them: it’s harder for us to judge
>> which changes are critical, which changes are just the beginning of
>> broader modifications/fixes, etc.
>>
>> I’d be willing to just use upstream’s release.  It has bugs, no doubts,
>> but the next release will have its own bugs too.  :-)  Furthermore,
>> SONAMEs and symbol versioning is quite critical, but it’s usually done
>> under the assumption that people use releases, not intermediate
>> snapshots.
>>
>> I understand that glibc’s 2.27 branch is stable, contains nothing but
>> bug fixes, and in that sense is rather safe.  Still…
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I pushed the patch with the cherry-picked fixes.  I'd rather not
> knowingly break "date" on some locales, or introduce runtime issues on
> i686.  But I do agree that these things should really be upstreams job.

Great, makes sense!

> All the distros I've checked take the entire branch, so we are the "odd
> kid out".  But I guess that's nothing new.  ;-)

Heheh.  :-)

>> BTW, what about emailing the libc people to add you to the list of
>> distro maintainers at <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS>?
>> I think it could be useful.
>
> That might be useful indeed.  I'll look into it.
>
> I think we're getting ready to build core-updates now.  Should we try
> starting the 'core' subset on Hydra?  Maybe also set a 'freeze' date?

Note that berlin has been building the ‘core’ subset for a while
already.  With berlin it’s harder to see what the status is, currently,
though ‘guix weather’ and “make assert-*” should help.

As for the freeze date, it could be within a couple of days if we see
that there’s no issue with the ‘core’ subset.

Thoughts?  Do you want to be the time keeper or should it be someone
else?  :-)

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.