BEWARE: a problematic glibc made it to stable (F16)

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2011 01:06 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 15:30 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>
>>>> What did you downgrade to ?
>>>> AFAIK Several people had to downgrade from -11 because of nsswitch
>>>> issues ... seem glibc is not in good shape :-(
>>>
>>> You get to pick your breakage. If glibc maintainers would kindly stop
>>> pulling random git snapshots into a pending stable release that would be
>>> nice
>>
>> It is horrendously stupid to do this.  It is not a question of being
>> kind or nice.  Fedora is not glibc's development platform.  They should
>> get their own and stop mucking around and breaking things unnecessarily
>> and repeatedly.  If they won't stop on their own, FESCo must push them
>> to stop.
>
> Except that Fedora _has_ been glibc's development platform for as long
> as I can remember.  The Fedora project might not think so, but it's
> exactly what upstream glibc does.  They've made claims that they won't
> change things in glibc that depend on external items until it's in a
> Fedora release and they do their final upstream release just before
> Fedora does (much the chagrin of rel-eng since we've had to take a
> late "upstream" release that is essentially a rename after freeze).
>
> There are 3 possible solutions.  I'll list them in what I think is
> order of preference.
>
> 1) Upstream changes their development model to follow the Fedora
> Branched method, introducing a development freeze upstream around the
> same time we branch.  Non-trivial rewrites and/or features go into
> rawhide, bugfixes go into branched.
>
> 2) We ignore this still, and generally realize that yes the practice
> is somewhat dubious but for the most part a vastly large and

That should read "... for the most part _isn't_ ...".  Sigh.

josh