This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainers, please test your 2.20 builds and report status!
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:53:55 -0300
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainers, please test your 2.20 builds and report status!
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53D7FDF4 dot 8020404 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1407292108160 dot 8784 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <53D86B99 dot 9080203 at redhat dot com> <53D86D22 dot 605 at redhat dot com>
On 30-07-2014 00:57, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 07/29/2014 11:50 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 07/29/2014 05:09 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Machine maintainers, please test your builds and report test results
>>>> for 2.20 on the wiki!
>>>>
>>>> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.20
>>> I haven't seen an announcement that we're in freeze yet. It makes no
>>> sense to do architecture testing until we've reached a decision on the
>>> fmemopen changes, since they affect the ABI baselines.
>> It does make sense. You can test everything to make sure no other problems
>> are found. When and if the fmemopen changes go in you can test again.
> My opinion is that fmemopen should wait for 2.21 and get distribution
> level testing in Fedora rawhide.
I am fine pushing to 2.21. The only patch that I think is necessary for 2.20 is
the https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-07/msg00487.html, which is required
to fix some build issues [1].
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122714
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
>