From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 16:23:24 +0000
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv4] package/glibc: switch to using the
 maintenance branch
In-Reply-To: <20171030222654.GB3150@scaer>
References: <20171029095248.24830-1-yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
 <20171029155251.7c321e00@windsurf> <1509361625.3930.10.camel@synopsys.com>
 <20171030222654.GB3150@scaer>
Message-ID: <1509467004.4869.23.camel@synopsys.com>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Hi Yann,

On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 23:26 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Alexey, All,
> 
> On 2017-10-30 11:07 +0000, Alexey Brodkin spake thusly:
> > 
> > On Sun, 2017-10-29 at 15:52 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:52:48 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > glibc upstream has ruled against doing regular point-releases, but they
> > > > do have a lot of interesting and important fixes for regressions and
> > > > security.
> [--SNIP--]
> > 
> > Sorry for a bit late reply - was catching up after ELCE journey.
> 
> Yup, same here! Was nice seeing you again there. :-)_
> 
> > 
> > Back in the day when we added support of Glibc for ARC we intentionally
> > left glibc patches where they were so they were applid to ARC version of glibc as well.
> > 
> > Now those patches are gone. I'm wondering if some of them were fixing real problems
> > discovered in Buildroot?
> 
> When he bumped the version to 2.26, Romain noticed a few issues, and
> cherry-picked the relevant few patches. So yes, they were for real
> problems.
> 
> > 
> > If so then we may want to get them back for ARC until we
> > rebase ARC glibc on top of more recent upstream version where some if not all of those
> > patches are already integrated.
> > 
> > IIRC the patches in question were applied to ARC's glibc version without issues,
> > i.e. corresponding commits were not there yet for us.
> 
> The issue is that there are now 73^W75 patches on the 2.26 maintance
> branch, and we don't really know what to use/not to use. So we decided
> to use all of it and do it via a git clone.
> 
> Since you, Synopsys, are providing glibc from a git branch as well (I
> just noticed that there was a release tagged a few days ago, btw), I
> think it is up to you to base your branch on whatever upstream commit
> you believe makes sense, and backport/cherry-pick/merge whatever you see
> fit in your branch.

Sure, makes sense.
So basically what we may do is to cherry-pick all commits from glibc's
stable branch to our "release" branch so that we're not blindly rebasing
on top of master branch but keep our "stable" code-base based on not up-to-date
upstream master and only add fixes on top of it.

> Definitiely, the idea is to not cary in Buldroot a patch that is in the
> upstream branch.
> 
> I think we could very well get an exception for a very few patches,
> specific to the ARC port, to live in package/glibc/arc-2017.09-eng010/
> if need be, for the upcoming release, though.
> 
> Hopefully, that situation will resolve itself as soon as ARC support
> lands upstream. ;-)

Well I hope so :)

-Alexey