Hi,
On 06/09/2012 12:24 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> *Every* major distro working on ARM has implemented what
was agreed by
>>> all of us in the conf call. Except Fedora. At this point, the message
>>> *seems* to be that Fedora developers just do not care about working
>>> with the rest of the community, and that's a real shame. Please,
let's
>>> work together to get this fixed.
>>
>> There is no "except Fedora" here. To quote your own minutes [3]
>> "Fedora; they're planning to do it Real Soon Now." from the
meeting,
>> I'm not sure what was said in the meeting regarding releases but this
>> was something I personally didn't want to ship 5 minutes before we put
>> a major release out. That said it will most definitely be in Fedora
>> 18, some of it has already landed and the rest will be very soon and
>> quite possibly rolled back into F-17 once its been tested.
>
> There was urgency in the agreement - we all agreed that there
> should *not* be any distro releases of ARM hard-float using the
> wrong linker path. The Ubuntu developers managed to make the minor
> changes needed and QA them in 2 weeks before they released. Fedora
> are taking *much* longer to implement those same changes, which is
> really frustrating.
So if it was agreed that there should *not* be any distro release
without the changes I don't see such an important decision minuted in
the meeting [1] or discussed in the cross-distro thread. In fact it's
documented that Mentor would be releasing without it and that the
Ubuntu release would have some things correct but not all tools would
be converted.
I was at that meeting, and I don't think that anyone on the call knew
(or at least they didn't mention) that the soname would change, which
requires either a mass rebuild or a weird hack in ld.so:
On 04/18/2012 01:35 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And there's a slight wrinkle we've found (of course). The
change of
the filename equates to a change of soname for the linker too. Adam
found this a couple of days back when doing rebuilds of the glibc and
toolchain packages in Ubuntu, and between us we've come up with a
(hacky, ugly, *never* to be upstreamed) solution. It seems to work
fine for us, to at least allow for supporting old binaries until
packages are all rebuilt to use the new linker path/soname. Just
talking to Andreas, the openSUSE folks are running with this too.
On 06/09/2012 12:24 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Fedora 17 has a policy for our secondary architectures that is long
documented [2] for diversion from Primary architectures as well as a
widely known policy for tracking upstream [3] which was discussed very
recently with regards to the issues we've had with mainline kernels on
the cross-distro list. The published schedule [4] for Fedora 17 had
the main feature deadline as 20th March. The thread you started on
this list only stated on 31st March with upstream gcc commits on 26th
April and the upstream glibc commits didn't happen until 8th May [8]
and even on 24th May there was still ongoing discussions.
That's right. It wasn't possible to make the change in the time
available. If it had been just a matter of adding a compat symlink,
as was suggested at the meeting, it would have been possible.
I think the thing you're missing here when comparing the Fedora
release to Ububtu 12.04 is that Fedora isn't a long term release the
next release will be in 6 months which is similar time frames to most
of the other hardfp releases. If it's open source being developed on
F-17 ARM it can be recompiled to fix the linker standardisation
problem, and commercial vendors should be well aware of the Fedora
release schedule and it's guarantee of stability especially on what is
currently a secondary arch. Fedora is not RHEL.
Precisely. I don't think this is such a huge deal because Fedora is a
very time-limited distro. We knew that the changes would get in on a
best-effort basis. All that we have now is a six-month hiatus until
F18: unfortunate, but the dates just didn't work.
Andrew.