[parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(

[parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(

[David Huggins-Daines]

Hi,

I've merged pehc CVS with glibc 2.1.94 release (no more tracking CVS
for me, too much pain).

The patch is clean enough that I'm able to just add it to the Debian
glibc 2.1.94 source package.  So I will build that overnight
(hopefully) and upload it sometime soon.

For the time being there is a tarball at
ftp://puffin.external.hp.com/pub/parisc/binaries/userspace/glibc-2.1.94-20001003.tar.gz

But!  Beware!  It *will* break your system.  Somehow, the versions of
a bunch of symbols in libm.so.6 reverted to GLIBC_2.0 from GLIBC_2.2
(don't ask me how this happened, math/Versions is still exactly the
same...  I think our 2.1.92 had a bug in the script that generates the
version maps) and as a result, anything that links with libm will not
work.  This includes fun things like perl, awk, some parts of
shellutils, etc. etc.

Sorry about this, but I guess we have no choice, our old libm.so was
broken.

I'm rebuilding perl, shellutils, and awk and expect to have new
packages on pehc real soon now.  (perl's version will be 5.005.03-7.2,
shellutils and awk will be similarly bumped)

-- 
dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.

Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(

[Ulrich Drepper]

David Huggins-Daines <dhd@linuxcare.com> writes:

> But!  Beware!  It *will* break your system.  Somehow, the versions of
> a bunch of symbols in libm.so.6 reverted to GLIBC_2.0 from GLIBC_2.2

You never should have GLIBC_2.0 symbols.  The shlib-versions file
should have GLIBC_2.2 as the earliest version (third column).

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------

Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(

[David Huggins-Daines]

Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes:

> You never should have GLIBC_2.0 symbols.  The shlib-versions file
> should have GLIBC_2.2 as the earliest version (third column).

Ah, I see what the problem is.  It seems that it is my fault :(

I take it that libc.so, libm.so, and ld.so should all be versioned
with GLIBC_2.2 as the base, then?

-- 
dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.

Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(

[Ulrich Drepper]

David Huggins-Daines <dhd@linuxcare.com> writes:

> I take it that libc.so, libm.so, and ld.so should all be versioned
> with GLIBC_2.2 as the base, then?

Every single DSO.  There is no compatibility to be preserved.

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------

Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(

[David Huggins-Daines]

Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes:

> David Huggins-Daines <dhd@linuxcare.com> writes:
> 
> > I take it that libc.so, libm.so, and ld.so should all be versioned
> > with GLIBC_2.2 as the base, then?
> 
> Every single DSO.  There is no compatibility to be preserved.

Okay, yes, you're right.  Unfortunately we've built a bunch of
binaries against our broken libc, so it will all have to be rebuilt,
because all binaries expect to see GLIBC_2.0 and GLIBC_2.1 versions.

But I guess this is the right thing to do, since we really do not want
any of the compatibility cruft bloating our libc.

HP people note: Yes it looks like we have to rebuild everything.  I
think I can get things up again rather quickly, as I just need to
build a static toolchain and then relink all the packages that are
sitting around built on my A180.  We will have to clear out the
archive in pehc:/pub/debian-hppa though.

I am not very pleased with symbol versioning at the moment :(

-- 
dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.