Re: cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/patches by gotom
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:57:46AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:45:36 -0500,
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:16:34PM -0700, Debian GLibc CVS Master wrote:
> > > Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches
> > > who: gotom
> > > time: Mon Feb 3 17:16:34 MST 2003
> > > Log Message:
> > > - debian/patches/0list: Disabled ldso-disable-hwcap.dpatch because
> > > (1) -opt is not provided currently, (2) disabling hwcap is not good
> > > way whether -opt package is installed or not.
> >
> > Um, did you talk to Ben about this? That patch is very important for
> > smooth upgrades.
>
> No, I did not talk to Ben.
>
> IMHO, there are two reasons not to apply this dpatch. In first, -opt
> is not provided currently. And second, if a user designates
This may hurt upgrading _to_ a version which has -opt.
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and if /etc/ld.so.hwcap is not existed, then hwcap is
> disabled. The hwcap pathes are not included to search.
Why does that happen? By the way, looking at the path I wonder if it
has a typo in it. It looks like it's disabling hwcap if the file does
NOT exist, instead of if it does exist. That would be a bug.
> BTW, why is this patch so important? Can we upgrade smoothly without
> this patch? Are there another way to be able to upgrade without it?
> Please enlighten me...
If hwcap is enabled when the version of libc6-i686 on the system
doesn't match the version of libc6, very bad things can happen. We end
up using the linker (/lib/ld-linux.so.2) with the optimized library
(/lib/i686/libc.so.6) and they may not work together.
At least I think that's what happened.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: