[PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17

[Jeff Law]

On 01/29/14 10:21, Adam Conrad wrote:
>
> As such a distribution that has thousands of publicly available
> binaries built against that ABI, I object quite strongly to this.
But using an unreleased upstream version of glibc, right?  ISTM until 
upstream releases a version all bets are effectively off.

Also, it would also seem to me that with the ongoing changes in GCC that 
are fixing bootstrap bugs on ppc64-le that a mass rebuild at some point 
in the relatively near future would be very wise.



>
> I understand the reasons for this, and that for the disribution that
> is based on 2.17, it would mean they need to version their symbols
> at 2.18 and backport the missing symbols, but I'm not sure that's a
> valid reason to force other distributions to rebootstrap and rebuild
> the world.
But is forcing one distribution to do backporting because another has 
binaries in the wild using an unreleased version glibc valid either?

Either way, this situation is going to be painful.  But I believe 
resetting the symbols to a 2.17 base will ultimately make the ppc64-le 
port more accessable to a wider developer audience.

> When this came up on the list in November, the "people are already
> using these symbol versions" argument was why the "it needs to change
> to 2.19" argument fell flat, and it stayed at 2.18.  I'm not sure how
> the groups who didn't want to break ABI were relevant then, but have
> become irrelevant months later.
Sorry, didn't catch that discussion :(

> This double-double transition rumour is something it would be nice to
> nail down as well, especially if it's something we can sort earlier
> than later, but it's also not as world-ending an ABI break as changing
> the baseline symbol version.
Well, it's an ABI break, but with a little engineering binaries of the 
two types can co-exist with multilibs and such.

jeff