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

Re: NTPL transition

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:29:06PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM, dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org> wrote:
> > If we continue to use libc6 as the package name as we're currently
> > doing, at some point libc will get upgraded to the NPTL interface and
> > things will start crashing immediately. I asked if we could just do
> > "whatever x86 did", and kyle said that we have a problem they didn't -
> > our data nptl/lt data structures are incompatible.
> >
> > We can deal with that to an extent by adding a second libc package,
> > e.g., libc6.1. But, jejb pointed out that, since most libs depend on
> > libc, we'll need to be able to have libs for both interfaces at the
> > same time to support a transitional upgrade - and that implies an
> > SONAME bump for every C library.
> >
> > Hopefully there's an easier way, but I don't know of one.
> How far away is queeze?

There's no set timeframe - but I think we can easily assume it will
be at least 1 year after lenny, which is frozen for release now.

> I have to go write some, code, and test some changes, and get back to
> the list with some options.
> Namely:
> Is it possible to change the pthread structures such that writing the
> compatibility code is easy?
> - Leave padding where the old lock words were and detect statically
> initialized locks by looking at these words?
> - Does this break Gentoo? I think they just emerge world.
> - Does this break Ubuntu hppa? Probably.

thanks Carlos

dann frazier

Reply to: