Re: glibc-snapshot package
At Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:50:19 -0400 (EDT),
Jack Howarth wrote:
> I thought the plan was to simply push glibc 2.3.1 into sid, no?
> I have been running the glibc 2.3 debian cvs source patches
> and glibc cvs (built almost daily) on debian ppc sid for about
> a month now. I have seen no issues running gcc 2.95.4/glibc 2.2.5
> built binaries under it. I would vote to simply do the push into
> sid and fix the breakage. Other than problems with glibc not passing
> make check on some arches (which can be captured by just letting those
> offending builds go into sid), the only real issue left should be
> a bit of libgcc-compat code on arches like mips. I have already
> posted the outline of a patch for them to fix that...
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200210/msg00154.html
>
> In short, I doubt we will get sufficient testing on problematic
> arches unless we take the leap and push into sid. However I would
> make sure that the findsyms perl script I wrote has been run on the
> debian sid package archives for any arches which we have to create a
> libgcc-compat for to make sure our list of libgcc symbols is complete.
> I'm not sure that is the case for mips yet for example.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200209/msg00164.html
I want to know mips has this problem (buildd tell us the answer, I hope).
If so, I agree we should fix as you said.
-- gotom
Reply to: