This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Distributions still suffering from s390 ABI change problems.
- From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- To: carlos at redhat dot com
- Cc: krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, roland at hack dot frob dot com, aurelien at aurel32 dot net, siddhesh at redhat dot com, allan at archlinux dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: Distributions still suffering from s390 ABI change problems.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53C43A5E dot 9020304 at redhat dot com> <20140714 dot 132444 dot 140785163900092398 dot davem at davemloft dot net> <53C440FF dot 3010308 at redhat dot com>
From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:43:43 -0400
> I've never slouched from doing work. I see no serious technical reasons
> for not bumping the soname other than breaking tooling that explicitly
> always looks for libc.so.6. It would do us well to fixup such tooling
> to actually look at the binary to see what libc it's using by examining
> DT_NEEDED.
Yes, I certainly agree that we should see such opportunities as ways
to flush out the tools which have these problems.
> Should we bump the soname for glibc on s390?
As you have already stated, we're already in a pickle because the ABI
change has been deployed as libc.so.6
So at this point, such a cure may already be worse than the disease.
Therefore, on the negative side, we might be stuck with this. But, on
the positive side, we can refer to this incident next time a similar
incident arises. We now know exactly what the ramifications are for
not handling this properly.