This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:10:50 -0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] change GLIBC PPC64/ELF2 ABI default to 2.17
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1391008726 dot 16702 dot 105 dot camel at spokane1 dot rchland dot ibm dot com> <52E92E7C dot 1040707 at redhat dot com> <20140129172158 dot GT15976 at 0c3 dot net> <20140129181118 dot 9F85174441 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 29-01-2014 16:11, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The proposed change is contrary to longstanding explicit policy. But so is
> that status quo that Adam is asking to maintain. IMHO there were very good
> reasons we had that policy, and one of those was keeping the libc community
> out of bicker wars between distributions that chomped at the bit and
> released something before it was declared official by the community.
>
> I think we should just stick to the policy, so it's GLIBC_2.19 because
> that's the first glibc release that will support the configuration. Adam
> and Steven both deserve what they get. The policy was established and they
> ignored it when they started distributing binaries for a glibc ABI that was
> never part of an actual glibc release. That's the only way to be fair to
> everyone (by making nobody happy).
>
> But at the end of the day, these things have to be in the hands of the
> machine maintainers. Steven is one of the powerpc maintainers and Adam is
> not. Steven has an obligation to do what is right and proper as a GNU
> maintainer concerned with all users and the maintenance burdens on the
> project, independent of his role at IBM and his concern with users of IBM's
> products. But I can't make that judgement about powerpc users at large.
>
Right now there is no released distro for PPC64LE. There are internals builds,
but still are WIP. This is not a strong reason, but it means the PPC64LE ecosystem
is not already settled. Also the hardware intend to run this ABI is not releases yet.
We at IBM are trying to settle a PPC64LE ecosystem by coping with different
requirements, aiming for which is best for the platform. Changing it to 2.17 will
means bring more distributions for LE ecosystem, which it is what we are strongly
pursing right now. Yes, this change is contrary to longstanding explicit policy,
but different for x32 port the PPC64LE is intended to focus in PPC64 ecosystem.
That's why we are pushing this change, even though some of us, including myself,
are not really fond of it. Yes, it will require manpower and some rebuild for
internal distro alphas, but we are confident this will help us leverage the
ecosystem in a long term.