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

Re: TLS support (Re: linux-2.4 deprecated)

Matthias Klose a écrit :
Steve Langasek writes:

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:06:21PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

A few weeks ago, the 2.4 kernels have been declared "deprecated" [1]. I
would like to know what does this exactly mean:
- That users are advised not to use them?
- That we could drop support for them in other packages?
- That they will be removed from the archive soon?

It means 1), and should mean 3) as well.  In general, it does *not* imply 2)
-- we need to be assured of having a clean upgrade path from sarge to etch,
and since sarge shipped with a 2.4 kernel by default, this means that etch
packages should at least be functional enough on 2.4 to allow a full upgrade
and subsequent reboot to a new kernel.  (That includes not breaking the
system if the upgrade is interrupted and the system is rebooted again to a
2.4 kernel before the upgrade completes.)

In light of #361024, what are our options?

- configure gcc with --disable-tls (on which architectures would that
  be (not) needed?)

AFAIK, it is not need on amd64, and for unofficial architectures on kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64.

- build a libstdc++6 with a gcc, configured with --disable-tls and ship
  two versions? Would that help the upgrade issue?

That's another possibility. I don't know what are the advantage of TLS in libstdc++6, but you can put a TLS version of the library in /usr/lib/tls.

Sheplyakov Alexei writes:

Current glibc does not support TLS under 2.4 kernels (see #226716), so
this is probalby glibc bug (some people call it feature).

- provide TLS support for 2.4 kernels and an upgrade path?

2.4 kernels does not have the necessary stuff to support TLS, so that's not possible.

  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32@debian.org         | aurelien@aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

Reply to: