This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: 2.25 freeze - a little more than the holiday fortnight to go


On Thu, 2016-12-22 at 14:59 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> there is a risk that the new condvar implementation, as it 
> exists today, is technically *impossible* to release as an in-place 
> Fedora update.

This would be bad for the practice of deploying glibc updates, I agree
with that.  However, not having a complete solution for that other
problem should not delay our testing of the new condvar.  We can always
revert the condvar closer to the 2.25 release.

> If we merge the new 
> condvar as it exists today, and the tool cannot be written after all, 
> then we'll have to maintain a suitably patched condvar fork in Fedora 
> (and we'd likely need your help with that).  Other distributions which 
> have encountered a similar problem will have to maintain a similar fork.

Or they would have to use an older or forked glibc for the affected
buggy program only.

Also, if such a tool cannot be written ever, then we're in a very bad
situation too because all users of condvars will have a slightly broken
condvar (because of the bug in the old condvar algorithm).  This might
even affect bdb too!

> With Emacs, we delayed changing malloc until we were sure we found an 
> approach which kept existing Emacs binaries working.  Similarly, we can 
> make the condvar change in Fedora as long as it does not break in-place 
> upgrades.

The difference is that the glibc change affecting Emacs was an
enhancement, not a bug fix.  The current condvar is not conforming to
POSIX.  Delaying bug fixes for everyone is bad.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]