This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] PowerPC64 ELFv2 ABI 6/6: Bump ld.so soname version number
- From: Steven Munroe <munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot comcom>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:39:30 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC64 ELFv2 ABI 6/6: Bump ld.so soname version number
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311131535530 dot 24404 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <201311131832 dot rADIWWl1006890 at d06av02 dot portsmouth dot uk dot ibm dot com> <20131114030709 dot GJ20756 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <mvmbo1npe6q dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de>
- Reply-to: munroe at us dot ibm dot com
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 09:42 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Alan Modra <email@example.com> writes:
> > We are very likely going to have a distro release off the 2.18 branch,
> > or at least based on source prior to the FSF 2.19 release. Correct me
> > if I'm wrong here, but I believe that distro glibc ought to be marked
> > as 2.18.
> That would have an incompatible ABI, so it won't happen.
That is not helpful and completely arbitrary. Is it not incompatible
version as ELF2 is new and independent of previous PowerPC ABIs.
As the PowerPC64 ELF2 is new we should have some flexibility in
establishing the starting release, as long as we are consistent moving
Is is a possible compromise in a 2.18.1 or 2.18b version where we could
back port the ELF2 changes only to the 2.18 branch?