This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus summary around changing GLIBC PPC64 LE ABI default to 2.17
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Adam Conrad <adconrad at 0c3 dot net>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, Steven Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Brooks Moses <bmoses at google dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:08:03 -0800
- Subject: Re: Consensus summary around changing GLIBC PPC64 LE ABI default to 2.17
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52EC34E1 dot 7040008 at redhat dot com> <52EC3861 dot 7010503 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> The decision to switch the ABI default to 2.17 has been made by IBM here:
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-01/msg00799.html
>
> This email is to record final consensus around this issue.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Consensus summary around changing GLIBC PPC64 LE ABI default to 2.17
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> IBM (Steven Munroe) - Yay.
>
> Red Hat (Carlos O'Donell) - Yay.
> - Sustained opposition to leaving ABI baseline at GLIBC_2.18.
> - Provided patches to help others rebuild during ABI change.
>
> SUSE (Andreas Jaeger) - Nay.
> - Needs to rebuild distribution with new ABI.
>
> Canonical (Adam Conrad) - Nay.
> - Needs to rebuild distribution with new ABI.
>
> Joseph Myers - No sustained opposition
> - Considers use of 2.19 ABI the only sensible policy.
> - Considers symbol backports easy. Example given Nios II.
>
> Roland McGrath - No sustained opposition.
> - Considers use of 2.19 ABI the only sensible policy.
>
> H.J. Lu - No sustained opposition
> - Considers symbol backports easy. Example given x32.
>
> Brooks Moses - No sustained opposition.
>
> The goal of the discussions were to reach some consensus regarding
> the PPC64 LE ABI changes to support 2.17-based distributions.
>
> The three main technical answers to the question of "Which ABI?" are:
>
> (a) Distros rebase glibc on 2.19 and rebuild with GLIBC_2.19.
>
> - Red Hat is unable to do this given their constraints. The assumption
> is that it's also out of the picture for SUSE and Canonical which
> have 2.18-based distributions.
>
> (b) Stay on 2.1[78] sources using GLIBC_2.1[89] default ABI and backport
> all 2.1[89] symbols to produce a 2.1[78]-based release whose ABI
> is identical to the GLIBC_2.1[89] ABI released upstream.
>
> - Despite statements by several developers that this is easy, no major
> enterprise distribution has been released with a glibc patched like this.
> There may be additional risk.
>
> - It is expected that neither SUSE nor Canonical want to try have a hybrid
> symbol release either. Thus setting the ABI baseline to GLIBC_2.19
> places them in the same position it places other 2.17-based distributions
> with GLIBC_2.18 as the default ABI.
>
> (c) Move the ABI baseline to GLIBC_2.17.
>
> - This is what Red Hat and IBM propose to support 2.17-based and newer
> distributions in the PPC64 LE ecosystem.
>
> After input from all parties the decision has been made by the machine
> maintainer IBM to choose (c).
>
Is this considered as the new policy or an exception?
--
H.J.