Three more days left before the 2.30 release...
Fri Jan 26 21:45:00 GMT 2018
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Mark Wielaard <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 17:51 +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> Right, well given how close we are to the deadline for the 2.30
>> release, and the fact that it does not look like this issue is
>> going to be resolved quickly, I am going to have to make an
>> executive decision.
>> I am going to stay with the sources as they are for now.
> I appreciate that you'll have to make a decision to fix things or keep
> the existing code because it is too close to release time. It is
> ultimately your decision. But...
>> Mark, but I without any concrete proof of broken tools, I am
>> going to trust that H.J.'s change will work out in the long run.
> I think this is not really fair. It should be on the person proposing a
> new, incompatible, format to argue for why it is essential, not on the
> people having to fix the tools to support the new format, to proof such
> a breaking change is necessary.
> I have been raising this issue since at least November last year on
> various gnu-abi/gabi lists. I believe the consensus has always been
> that changing the GNU ELF notes format after 20 years is just asking
> for trouble. That is also what people said reviewing H.J.'s binutils
> and glibc patches. It complicates anything dealing with ELF notes since
> there are now suddenly multiple different formats to support.
> Also it is fairly easy to show "concrete proof" of broken tools. H.J.
> had to patch binutils itself, glibc and the linux kernel to just parse
> the alternative format. I have fixed some things in elfutils to at
This is not entirely true. The binutils and glibc can parse the standalone
property note just fine since they don't need note alignment to get the
next note. What I did was to make up a new note with 8 byte alignment
and placed it before the property note by hand. That is how I found the
More information about the Binutils