This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] hppa: add fanotify_mark
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:33:19 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hppa: add fanotify_mark
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1377100993-9438-1-git-send-email-vapier at gentoo dot org> <1377728809-6729-1-git-send-email-vapier at gentoo dot org> <5220DB3E dot 1040609 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure about the usage of GLIBC_2.19 symbols here.
> > We'd like to backport this so people can use it, but it means we'd
> > be releasing a glibc-2.17/glibc-2.18 with a GLIBC_2.19 symbol in it.
> > But maybe it won't be a big deal since you'd only get that 2.19 ref
> > if you actually used the symbol ?
> That's going to be very hard to do without some intense hacking to
> get a 2.17 or 2.18 with a 2.19 symbol. The build system isn't designed
> to allow you to do that?
Backporting a Versions.def addition is trivial.
(Of course if hppa had ABI test baselines, a backport to there would be
needed along with the rest of the changes, but (a) that's just as easy and
(b) that's still on my long list of areas hppa is out of sync with other
ports - such baselines will of course need comparing with past
distribution binaries when added, to detect any ABI bugs introduced over
Joseph S. Myers