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

Re: MySql broken on older 486 and other cpuid less CPUs. Does this qualify as RC?

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:24:04PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:46:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Document it in the release notes, please.  It's not worth risking
> > stability for the majority of users for this kind of bug.

> > Anyway, is there any particular reason why upstream (or you) don't use
> > the Intel-recommended way for detection of CPUID support?  A library
> > twiddling with SIGILL isn't a terribly good idea.

> I have no idea.  I just made the smallest change possible to make mysql
> not break 486 machines.  The other option is to go back to what was done
> for sarge as far as I can tell, which is use the C implementation rather
> than the assembly one and loose the performance gains on newer CPUs.

> And documenting in the release notes that 486s will break on upgrade
> doesn't seem like a particularly good solution without a fixed package
> being made.  Well if nothing else it can go into 4.0r1 I guess, or a
> proposed update in the mean time.

Documenting it in the release notes isn't particularly *relevant* if a fixed
package is made, AFAICS.  The content for the r0 release notes is frozen
now anyway, to let translators catch up, so any mention of this in the
release notes would be included on CDs the same time as the fixed package,
more or less defeating the purpose.  We should probably consider an errata
document for the website, to document r0-specific issues that didn't make it
into the release notes, so that we don't have to choose between dropping
translations for not mentioning such errata and publishing
supposedly-complete translations that don't mention all the errata due to
time constraints.

Anyway, if this bug had been marked as RC at any point in the past months,
it certainly would have been fixed before now.  It's frustrating to see
people escalating bug severities at the very last minute, when the bug has
been known for a while and it's now too late to include a fix in r0 without
causing the release timeline to slip.  (This is not the only bug where this
has been the case; c.f. bug #399761.)  I do remember a bug thread months ago
about cpuid detection in mysql, but the fact that it wasn't listed as an RC
bug anymore means that it quickly fell off of *my* radar.

In practical terms, it seems to me that part of the fix here should really
be to declare that we don't officially support 486 CPUs anymore, since no
one who is using one was involved enough in the etch release to have
documented this bug as RC until three days before release. :P

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: