Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 21:23:35 UTC 2011


On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> 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. Otherwise it'll only
> get fixed with a 0-day.

As long as its not the broken one shipped as 0-day :-)


More information about the devel mailing list