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

Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA

On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 03:17:31PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 02:31 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes...
> > > It's ultimately Joey's call, but I think it would be far preferable to
> > > try to fix these lapses in the core libs instead of shipping two
> > > copies of libc and libpam with sarge r1.

> > Well fixing the core would definitely violate the stable release criteria 
> > since it changes the ABIs. (at least that's my understanding, Jeff can confirm)

> The PAM fix changes the behavior of the pam_unix module.  The behavior
> changed is not likely to ever be seen in the wild (basically, when a
> blank username is submitted to session management, return an error
> instead of PAM_SUCCESS), but it is a change.  Certainly, however, this
> could easily be fixed by patching the sarge pam module instead of using
> the dynamic linker hack.

> The glibc issues are numerous.  The biggest problem involves POSIX
> violations in NPTL 0.60, which evidently cannot be fixed in-place.
> Also, there are several glibc 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 symbols that are now
> required (more POSIX violations).

> I have requested assistance with the glibc issues on several occasions,
> and have been told that the best way forward is just to upgrade glibc.
> So, I expect that the dynamic linker hack is really the best way
> forward.

Yeah, given that glibc 2.3.2 -> 2.3.5 includes internal ABI changes that
break certain ill-behaved but nevertheless real-world applications, it's
definitely not a good idea to change out the version of glibc in a point
release. :/

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: