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

Can I update the sparc glibc?



Steve Dunham <dunham@cse.msu.edu> writes:

> Ok, I've got the native netscape running on Debian.  Thanks to Jakob
> for pointing me to some patches to glibc in UltraPenguin.

> The problem is that Netscape uses "longjmp()" between threads, which
> breaks with the glibc included in Debian.  A patch to the Sparc
> __longjmp code fixes this, and Netscape runs.

> Christian, are you planning on upgrading the Debian sparc distribution
> to glibc-2.1_2.0.105 anytime soon?  If so I have an essential patch
> for you.

> In the mean time, people can play with preliminary packages in
> "~dunham/" on master.  (There is no source package there yet - it's
> the same as the one in potato with one file changed, I'll generate a
> proper source package tonight.)

Apparently, all of the old patches are already there.  The Debian
build script does the patching and unpatching. I added a
"sparc-longjump.patch", and I am generating "glibc-pre2.1_2.0.105-1.1"
right now.


The question is: what do I do with it when I am finished?  We are
supposed to be releasing Debian for the Sparc RSN.  Chris is
recompiling stuff from slink - but our current glibc, 2.0.100 is not
in slink; in fact, the sources are nowhere on the ftp site.  The arm
people have pushed the source in potato up to version 2.0.105, and the
version in slink is a 2.0.95 snapshot.

We can't really release our current glibc binary without source.  I
personally would like to move to 2.0.105, since it makes Netscape
work, and I think it would break less than moving back to 2.0.95.  (My
system seems to run fine with 2.0.105.)

Who makes these decisions, do we have a leader for the sparc port, or
do we go by consensus?


Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu


Reply to: