On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
<siddhesh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> However the previous problem(s -- multiple) was glibc using
> non-Rawhide for integration testing, especially just while we were
> trying to stablise Fedora for a release:
>
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158440.html
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/158662.html
We're absolutely not going to rebase master in non-rawhide. Our
intention is to get glibc 2.20 release out before Fedora turns beta.
> But 2.20 is a stable branch, right? So this shouldn't be a concern
> now.
Yes, it is in what we call, a slushy freeze right now. Changes going
in are mostly regression fixes and other fixes that should not have
any generated code impact. There is however one change that the s/390
folks will find painful - s/390 broke ABI in 2.19 without a proper
justification and that is now going to be reverted in 2.20 (and in
2.19, but we don't really care about 2.19 right now).
To expand on this just a bit, the s/390 ABI break was done by the
s/390 glibc port maintainers and was done intentionally. This wasn't
a "oops, we accidentally broke the ABI" bug. It was something the
s/390 maintainers decided was of minimal concern and it turns out they
were wrong. In my experience, glibc goes above and beyond maintaining
their software. This s/390 incident is an anomaly in an otherwise
very controlled and well-run software project.
josh