Re: Need to release -13 for unstable real soon
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:16:03AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:26:30 -0400 (EDT),
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Speaking of building with gcc-3.1, I don't know if it ever made
> > it into Ben's glibc cvs, but there is a libgcc-compat patch required
> > to maintain backward binary compatibility if you rebuild glibc with
> > gcc > 3.1. I know at least ia64 and ppc suffer this problem and we'll
> > have to test the other arches for it as well to be sure. The
> > glibc-2-2-branch of the glibc cvs has the ppc patch but I think the
> > ia64 fixes for the same issue may only be in mainline. Fortunately
> > I think the ppc form of the patch can be adapted for any other arches
> > that need such a fix.
> > Jack
> > ps The issue is discussed in the following threads...
> >
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-04/msg00025.html
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-05/msg00067.html
>
> Could you submit it to BTS?
>
> It needs some architecture test especially ia64/ppc after we apply the
> latest glibc patch in -14. However, it is occured in building glibc
> with gcc > 3.1, so we simply avoid this problem not to use gcc > 3.1.
> gcc-defaults does not use gcc 3.1 on any architectures. Currently it's
> potential bug, thus we don't need to take action ASAP... Is it right?
> Well, we must be keeping our eye in this issue.
It's mainly needed so OpenOffice can be compiled with gcc-3.1, and
gcc-2.95 compiled libc6 will play nicely with the resulting binary. So
it isn't as urgent as getting -13 out with the xdr/malloc security
fixes. When we update to glibc-2.2-cvs in -14, we will automatically
pull in the fix for this.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: