Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

James Robertson jwrober at
Mon Jan 12 14:34:13 PST 2004

Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:01PM -0600, James Robertson wrote:
>>Please forgive any potential ignorance on this subject, but why do we 
>>_want_ to bring upon ourselves the coreutils problem and the need for a 
>>non-official tarball release that we have to manage?
> James, you need to stay abreast of the issues. If you can't, then you need
> to respect the judegement of those that sre doing so i.e. me :-)

I could take offense to that, but will not.  I am simply asking 
questions.  I have been reading a lot of the emails.  I may not 
understand all of them, hence the questions.

>>I am confused.  Is 
>>Glibc 2.3.2 not good enough?
> No. There are apparent security issues (dunno how serious, but they are
> there). 

OK. One good reason.

> There also compiler issues. Glibc-2.3.2 is better matched with
> gcc-3.2.x. 

OK, another good reason.  We have upgraded to GCC 3.3.x.  That matches. 
  Thank you.

 > This is evidenced by the bazillion inlining failed type warnings
> that are not present in 2.3.3. There are numerous other code improvements
> worthy of calling it 2.3.3. Other distros are running much newer Glibc code
> than us. Part of the LFS appeal is that it is up to date. In short, 2.3.2 is
> now so old it ain't funny.

I don't care what the other distros do.  We have never followed like 
lemmings what the other distros do.  Why should we start now?  OK, so 
Glibc 2.3.2 is considered old.  Your reasons above are good ones.  LFS 
may need to be up to date, but not bleeding edge.

>>I know (I think) that 2.3.3 has NPTL in it 
>>and 2.3.2 does not, but you only need that if you are running linux 
>>2.6.x right?
> NPTL has nothing to do with this upgrade.

Ok, thank you.  Evidenced above.
>>What else is in there that requires us to upgrade and ring 
>>trouble on ourselves.  We are not a distro and so do not do things like 
>>the distros do - rememeber?
> Wow, that is an extremely vague and unhelpful comment and almost insulting
> to me.

Not meant to be.  This was meant as a catch-all.  "What have I missed?" 
So, of course, it was vague.  The main point was "trouble" if we upgrade 
we have to maintain our own tarball and now this coreutils issue. 
Again, we are not a distro and do not have full time paid folks to worry 
about such things.

>>With this coreutils issue coming to light I 
>>think it would be prudent to wait until the dust settles some more (even 
> Huh? This issue has been known about for half a year at least. See my para
> at start of this mail.

But has not been solved, really by the development team.  Who cares if 
it has been on the table for 6 months.  That is irrelevant.  The problem 
still exists and if we upgrade we still have to deal with it.  This is 
part of my post.

>> I know we want to be on the edge, but some things can wait 
>>until they stablize some.  Greg, I know you are the resident expert on 
>>the toolchain and Glibc is well within your area of control, but I am 
>>skeptical as to the need for this change at this time.
> Your opinion, not mine.

"Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one and most of them smell."
		- Author Unknown

>>Can't we wait 
>>until we decide to get linux 2.6.x into the book?
> 2.6 has nothing to do with this upgrade.

I see that as part of the NPTL deal.  Thanks.

>>I am still not sure 
>>if the whole "headers" thing got settled, which also effects Glibc and 
>>all the rest of the userland packages we install.
> In summary, James, I think it wrong for otherwise mostly dormant folks to
> pop up out of the blue and cast judgement on matters they clearly have not
> been paying attention to. This is open source. Those who do the work get to
> make the calls. In this case, it is clear to me that it's a more than
> appropriate upgrade. Consider this.. if the Glibc dev's had made a 2.3.3
> tarball then folks like yourself probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid!
> Ironic isn't it?

OK, so clearly I ruffled a few feathers.  I would not call myself 
dormant.  I have been watching all the threads on the whole Glibc thing. 
   I am following generally accepted netiquette; don't say anything 
unless you need to or have something to add.  Lurking is not a crime, 
don't make it sound like one!  I did not cast a single judgment.  I only 
asked more questions.  I will admit that I failed to review the archives 
before I posted my questions (which is also good netiquette).  I do 
apologize for that oversight.

You only gave three reasons to upgrade - security patches, age of Glibc 
2.3.2 and compatibility with GCC 3.3.x.  We incur other problems by 
doing the upgrade.  Namely having to maintain a tarball and the 
coreutils issue.  This is probably not all the issues relating to the 
upgrade. The tarball maintenance is a big shift in our way of handling 
things in the past.

In response to your last sentence, there is no irony.  You are not a 
glibc developer now are you?  If the Glibc developers released a 2.3.3 
tarball like normal, you are right, one of my issues would be 
irrelevant.  I was under the impression from your and other posts that 
the final decision on the matter was still in the air as it was only one 
of the team members pushing for no more tarballs, but the other ones did 
not agree (or something close to that).  We are making big decisions on 
a loosely coupled collection of information spread across a whole slew 
of emails. You are probably the only one who completely understands all 
of it.  No coherrent thread on all the issues has been presented by you 
on why we need to upgrade.  I could care less what Red Hat and the 
others are up to.  We are not a distro.  Why should we act like one?

Instead of attacking my questions, why not answer them?  I was never 
attacking your decision nor making judgments.  I was just looking for 
more info.  Getting mad and attacking me is not what I would consider 
good form.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list