| 1 |
On 19 Apr 2016 04:21, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ühel kenal päeval, E, 18.04.2016 kell 12:38, kirjutas Mike Frysinger: |
| 3 |
> > On 16 Apr 2016 09:23, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > So why on earth are we applying a random patch that upstream is not |
| 5 |
> > > using |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > not everyone uses glibc, and glibc *is* moving in this |
| 8 |
> > direction. Gentoo |
| 9 |
> > is simply accelerating the change ... otherwise glibc will take |
| 10 |
> > longer to do the actual migration. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You don't need to break everyone's ~arch for dubious glibc benefits, |
| 13 |
> which could be done by a p.masked version and a tinderbox run. |
| 14 |
> I am not your tinderbox dummy having to waste time on this to maintain |
| 15 |
> my own ~arch stuff. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
i waited until the known bugs died down. i don't have access to a |
| 18 |
tinderbox system myself. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > packages failing to build under glibc already |
| 21 |
> > fail to build in other environments. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> That is simply not true |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
except for the part where it is. highlighting one system where it's |
| 26 |
working for you doesn't mean all systems behave that way. there's even |
| 27 |
an autoconf macro specifically to deal with this and has been for years. |
| 28 |
they wouldn't have written & deployed it for fun. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> at least not to the extent you make it sound. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
not today, but as i said, we want to move multiple libraries (at least |
| 33 |
glibc, uClibc, musl, and bionic) in that direction. the current behavior |
| 34 |
violates the POSIX standard. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> Why are all the concerns raised at e.g |
| 37 |
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94231 not resolved then? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
what exactly are you expecting here ? i'm not an X.org dev. i can't |
| 40 |
fix code in that project for them. all the questions posed have been |
| 41 |
answered in the bug. it's merely waiting for them to actually commit |
| 42 |
code. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> Over there you even told you won't be including this patch in Gentoo, |
| 45 |
> but get it trickled in from upstream once they judge it as good to go. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
no idea where you're getting reading this. i never said that. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> Instead you go ahead and unmask this without removing the gentoo |
| 50 |
> specific sysmacros header removal, knowing FULLY WELL that you break |
| 51 |
> ~arch for a lot of things |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
again, no. read what i actually said, and read the actual bug open on |
| 54 |
the topic. most of the packages i was aware of were fixed, and there |
| 55 |
were only like 2 or 3 left assigned to projects/devs who are not me. |
| 56 |
once things moved into ~arch, we started getting more bug reports, not |
| 57 |
before. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> Even todays git of man-pages tells that including sys/types.h is |
| 60 |
> sufficient and the correct thing to do to get makedev/major/minor. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
and we've already been discussing fixing that. |
| 63 |
-mike |
Archives