Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Tue Oct 25 19:17:54 UTC 2011

On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 18:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> It's rather too complex to explain the change here, so I suggest
> you go and read these first:
> Now, I'm _not_ saying that the glibc change is wrong.  In fact, it
> enables extra gcc optimizations, which is great.  But in this case it
> looks like we're going to have to review all use of thread mutexes in
> the whole of Fedora.  Maybe not the kind of thing we had in mind for
> Fedora 16 at this point.
> I think it's great that Thomas Rast, Jim Meyering, and Jakub Jelinek
> found the problem after probably a couple of man-days of effort, but
> really development and bug fixing like this belongs in Rawhide.

Well, -13 is what we currently have in stable, and we're past freeze. So
unless this isn't broken in -13, to make sure this only 'nearly' gets
pushed into F16, we're going to need a non-broken -14 and that bug is
going to need to be proposed as a blocker or NTH. Otherwise it'll only
get fixed with a 0-day.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list