Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Tue Oct 25 19:25:56 UTC 2011
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:17:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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:
> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184205
> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184209
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747377#c22
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747377#c24
> > 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.
My non-expert advice would be that this should be a blocker. It would
be better if experts in POSIX arcana could weigh in on this subject
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
More information about the devel