From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:33:53 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] glibc: remove version choice In-Reply-To: References: <20170606175659.GA2566@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20170606213500.0fe44a79@free-electrons.com> <20170607212720.GA23160@scaer> <87h8zq9r6u.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20170610133353.068831eb@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:19:32 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > I think there is in fact more reason to have multiple versions for uClibc-ng > than for glibc. Multiple versions are useful in any situation when there are ABI > changes in the newer version so that binaries linked with the older version no > longer work. glibc is very careful about ABI changes, uClibc-ng somewhat less so. > > So yes, I'm in favour of removing this version choice. Also for binutils, by > the way. Yes, there may be regressions, but then those should be fixed, not > swept under the carpet for some time until the new version becomes the default. > > GCC is different, because newer GCC versions do break compatibility with older > libraries, and they do break existing (badly written) source code. In that sense > I think it was a bad idea to remove GCC 4.9, because GCC 5 did break binary > compatibility for C++... But I wasn't here at the time and that ship has sailed now. I haven't merged https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/767087/, so gcc 4.9 is still there: $ grep 4_9_X package/gcc/Config.in.host config BR2_GCC_VERSION_4_9_X default "4.9.4" if BR2_GCC_VERSION_4_9_X I was waiting for feedback (such as yours) before merging this patch. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com