1 |
On 8/17/2021 13:49, Sam James wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 17 Aug 2021, at 16:19, Joshua Kinard <kumba@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> [snip] |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> According to the uClibc-ng website, 1.0.38 was released earlier this year |
8 |
>> (March 27th). Was an announcement put out somewhere about the project not |
9 |
>> being maintained any further beyond that release, or has it gone quiet after |
10 |
>> that? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Upstream supporting something doesn't mean that's the case in Gentoo. The |
13 |
> last "proper" mention of deprecating uclibc in Gentoo was from blueness |
14 |
> in January this year [0]. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Funnily enough: while digging for the email, I did notice you replied [1] and couldn't |
17 |
> build ncurses, which is pretty apt for illustrating the problems here. That is, no developers |
18 |
> within Gentoo are supporting uclibc, none of us are really surprised when common/core packages |
19 |
> break, and the tracker [2] at least is rotting (as are other uclibc-related bugs). |
20 |
> |
21 |
> The gist is, it's not really supported anymore now. This is just about formally dropping |
22 |
> it. I'd be really surprised if anyone is able to use this day-to-day without a fair amount |
23 |
> of patches. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> In terms of "alt libcs", musl has won that fight. Maybe if somebody wants to step in future, |
26 |
> we can look at uclibc-ng again, but I don't think we've got the resources right now. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> [0] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/8b376050c51c7fa9a8a05246feb8c781 |
29 |
> [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/258c08a43961269338e4c9238783f8fe |
30 |
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/570544 |
31 |
> |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> I haven't been able to base a MIPS environment on uclibc-ng since 2019 when |
34 |
>> Python3 in my stage3's mysteriously all started failing for unexplained |
35 |
>> reasons. Thought about trying to bootstrap a new environment from scratch |
36 |
>> at some point, but just haven't gotten around to it. |
37 |
>> |
38 |
> |
39 |
> That sounds like a good reason to dump it too ;) |
40 |
|
41 |
The thing is, the breakage I describe is *really* weird. Unpack my 2019 |
42 |
uclibc-ng stage3 on a MIPS system, chroot in, everything works fine. But |
43 |
the instant you recompile ncurses inside of it, using the *same* Portage |
44 |
snapshot that it was built from, the Python interpreter falls over with a |
45 |
NULL deref in its curses module. I've debugged it down to the exact line of |
46 |
C code in Python, but cannot find an explanation why it fails. |
47 |
|
48 |
I've had my share of weird crap running these SGI systems, but this one |
49 |
takes the cake. That's why I gave up on uclibc-ng for a time until I could |
50 |
try kickstarting a new build from scratch using OpenADK (which still |
51 |
supports older pre-mips32/64r* platforms). No other choice, really, because |
52 |
once Python goes down, so too does emerge. |
53 |
|
54 |
Even bugged it on Python's bug tracker, but no surprise it's gone ignored: |
55 |
https://bugs.python.org/issue39819 |
56 |
|
57 |
In any event, yeah, I don't have a real issue with dropping it. I've |
58 |
noticed that some of the more recent commits to it are really just ingesting |
59 |
chunks of glibc and stripping out some of the macro fluff. There's actually |
60 |
a change in upstream glibc I've yet to test on one of my non-coherent cache |
61 |
platforms that uclibc-ng pulled in that probably breaks them in fun fun ways |
62 |
(not that that platform ever worked well from the beginning, though...). |
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
Joshua Kinard |
66 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
67 |
kumba@g.o |
68 |
rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 |
69 |
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 |
70 |
|
71 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
72 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
73 |
|
74 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |