[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NetBSD: 1.6.1 or -current? Major discussion request.

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 01:45:40PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>    1) __cxa_atexit - This can be worked around (GCC is patched to avoid
>    using it), but it's fugly and really should be fixed. Conveniently, in
>    -current, it is (after a PR requesting it). Can be backported, though I'm
>    not entirely sure I'm comfortable with that, given how it affects every
>    single C++ program ever compiled.
> i don't see why it would really be such a problem to backport this.

It probably isn't. There *might* be some care needed to avoid pulling in
pthread-related stuff, but overally, I think it would be doable.

>    2) ftw()/nftw() - This will be going into -current in a few days (and
>    replace the workaround jftw package). It really belongs in libc, not in a
>    separate library, and it will be there. Backporting this should be fairly
>    trivial, as it's completely new code that doesn't really interact iwth
>    anything else except for calling the pts suite. APT absolutely must have
>    this to build, however. (And it's a POSIX requirement, too.)
> this should definately go into the netbsd libc.

The only reason it isn't there yet is because I haven't gotton the final
form that's going into -current. :)

>    3) POSIX threads - This is a killer; tcl8.4 *must* be threaded, and is
>    breaking horribly with GNU pthreads (both 1.x and 2.x). Python depends on
>    TCL; a whole *lot* of things depend on python (or TCL), or on something
>    that does. The threading changes are so extensive that it's probably more
>    or less implausible to backport them to a 1.6 tree, since they were
>    started on post-1.6-release code.
> actually the threading changes were started a couple of years ago :)
> you are 100% correct that attempting to backport would be a complete
> waste of time, however.

Well, okay. The *major* ones happened post-1.6, but it's a long and
ongoing saga. :)

>    4) Not-really-an-issue - i386 SMP. There is a working release of the
>    i386/SMP branch against 1.6(.1), so it's by no means crucial, but -current
>    supports this in the core code, and it would be nice to support it where we
>    can (but an SMP patch is probably sufficient, if staying on 1.6.1).
> also - sparc SMP only exists in -current.

Didn't know that, but one more reason :)

>    So the question is - should I/we bail on trying to build a release on
>    1.6.x, and do one from -current instead? If it weren't for the POSIX
>    threads problem, I'd consider it, but that change is so invasive *and*
>    pervasive that it affects basically every application on the system in one
>    way or another, and it is COMPLETELY incompatible with anything compiled
>    against GNU pth pthreads - so the transition to 1.7 would be an utter
>    and royal pain in the arse to manage, and/or require a flag day (remove
>    evreything in the archive, upload new stuff). I can do flag days on my
>    archive easily enough (and have been considering it, since the build
>    environment is currently far cleaner than it used to be), but it will be a
>    very bad sign to the ftpmasters if we have to do it once we're in the main
>    archive.
>    Personally, I vote for rebuilding based on -current; however, since I'm far
>    from the only person doing this, and I'd like to have some chance of not
>    crossing over each other's work, I'd like to hear other opinions.
> the alternative is to get a modern kernel & libpthread (& libc?
> i'm not sure) but to leave the rest of userland alone.  then again
> i've been running netbsd-current systems almost exclusively for
> nearly 10 years (i have run some work/customer machines with
> releases... but never my own.)  -current works well nearly all
> of the time.  if you pick a snapshot, try it out for a while and
> if it is good, use it.

I don't generally have issues with -current, though I don't think I'd want
to claim we should release with that as the core. Mostly, the question was
"should I schedule a Flag Day and wipe out the current NetBSD archive"
(well, okay, probably 'move it aside' for now), and do a set of builds
based on -current. So far, the concensus on IRC and here seems to be 'yes'.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>

Attachment: pgpF1QEfhVVyW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: