This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- From: Steven Munroe <munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot comcom>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at foss dot arm dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:48:25 -0500
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <559606DB dot 6070600 at redhat dot com> <CAAHN_R2bjFU29Q7TTV2AHxEw-UN_RNHWrs3URKu+Ejq+=LUgLA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5596AED1 dot 8060203 at redhat dot com> <559AA805 dot 3020904 at foss dot arm dot com> <1436206143 dot 19117 dot 14 dot camel at oc7878010663> <1436220236 dot 22407 dot 8 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain>
- Reply-to: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 00:03 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 13:09 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote:
> > It takes at least two to be constructive.
> > Some like argue perfection or
> > require convincing everyone (not just GLIBC community members) to change
> > what they are already doing to a more "correct" way.
> I don't understand this sentence.
Sorry lost in translation ... Said more plainly.
Have you looked at what is going on PHP, OpenSSL, Boost, FFmpeg. ... and
the thousands of other packages that make up a complete distro?
I suspect you will not be happy with what you find.
So if you think __builtin_cpu_supports() is a bad solution and they
should be using STD_GNU_IFUNC then you need to convince them.
And __builtin_cpu_supports exist and has existed for Intel in compilers
including GCC for a while. So you have to convince them.
Arguing with me, will not help you achieve your goal.
Just being pragmatic ...
> > Like saying users
> > are stupid and they doing it wrong is not constructive.
> Agreed on the "are stupid", but saying that they are doing something
> that is not something glibc wants to support is not something that's
> necessarily bad.
But they you should be talking to them, explaining to them, convincing
Holding a platform maintainer hostage does not help you.
> > Straw-man, slipper slope, moral hazards argument should be excluded,
> > because there there no rational response to a an irrational argument.
> > If we don't restrain this behavior, we allow individuals to block
> > platform specific patches indefinitely.
> That goes both ways. You can apply the same concerns to the other way
> around. We need to find rules that are acceptable for all sides.