From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:50:04 -0700 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net ([24.147.1.144]:29105 "EHLO chmls06.mediaone.net") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:49:42 -0700 Received: from decoy (h00a0cc39f081.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.248.129]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA22970; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:49:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jay Carlson" To: "Ralf Baechle" , "Jun Sun" Cc: , Subject: RE: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:51:37 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20001014055550.B3816@bacchus.dhis.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing Ralf Baechle writes: > > d) glibc v2.0.7 from linux-vr project by Jay > > > > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/ > > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/rpms/glibc-2.0.7-20.src.rpm > > 2.0.7 has resulted in so many bug reports that I consider to > plain dump any > related reports in the future. Hey, don't blame me for the 2.0.6->2.0.7 version bump. I just grabbed the biggest version number on oss.sgi.com at the time and made my *trivial* patches to add softfloat to the build. Let me say that again: 2.0.7 is NOT MY FAULT. :-) Seriously, I think the best thing we can do in this situation is start assigning our own linux-mips version numbers to combinations of upstream sources and our patches. So, we'd have something like: glibc 2.0.6 + 05lm patches (whatever) == glibc2.0.6 delta 1.0 glibc 2.0.6 + 06lm patches (whatever) == glibc2.0.6 delta 1.1 egcs 1.0.3a + ralf's current patches == egcs 1.0.3a delta 1.0 egcs 1.0.3a + ralf's patches tomorrow == egcs 1.0.3a delta 2.0 binutils 2.8.1 + standard patches == binutils 2.8.1 delta 1.0 binutils 2.10.x on 20001014 == binutils 2.10.x delta 1.0 binutils 2.10.x on 20001015 == binutils 2.10.x delta 2.1 We need to give *names* to the versions of the software we're testing against. I haven't bothered trying a world rebuild against gcc 2.96.x because telling people it worked wouldn't mean anything. Other people would not know that they could reproduce my success by getting the same bits as me. What I really want to hear is: "I rebuilt gcc, binutils, the kernel, modutils, and GNU fileutils using gcc 2.96 delta 7.3, binutils 2.10.x delta 5.2, and glibc 2.1.95 delta 1.0", and then know EXACTLY how to reproduce that at home. Just saying "current CVS with patches" doesn't help with reproducibility. Jay From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jay Carlson" Subject: RE: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:51:37 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20001014055550.B3816@bacchus.dhis.org> Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Return-Path: To: Ralf Baechle , Jun Sun Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20001014145137.QidjWxSjgtXqFTUdk2sBR7kPqFeg7Jy_ss3rVkr9TvI@z> Ralf Baechle writes: > > d) glibc v2.0.7 from linux-vr project by Jay > > > > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/ > > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/rpms/glibc-2.0.7-20.src.rpm > > 2.0.7 has resulted in so many bug reports that I consider to > plain dump any > related reports in the future. Hey, don't blame me for the 2.0.6->2.0.7 version bump. I just grabbed the biggest version number on oss.sgi.com at the time and made my *trivial* patches to add softfloat to the build. Let me say that again: 2.0.7 is NOT MY FAULT. :-) Seriously, I think the best thing we can do in this situation is start assigning our own linux-mips version numbers to combinations of upstream sources and our patches. So, we'd have something like: glibc 2.0.6 + 05lm patches (whatever) == glibc2.0.6 delta 1.0 glibc 2.0.6 + 06lm patches (whatever) == glibc2.0.6 delta 1.1 egcs 1.0.3a + ralf's current patches == egcs 1.0.3a delta 1.0 egcs 1.0.3a + ralf's patches tomorrow == egcs 1.0.3a delta 2.0 binutils 2.8.1 + standard patches == binutils 2.8.1 delta 1.0 binutils 2.10.x on 20001014 == binutils 2.10.x delta 1.0 binutils 2.10.x on 20001015 == binutils 2.10.x delta 2.1 We need to give *names* to the versions of the software we're testing against. I haven't bothered trying a world rebuild against gcc 2.96.x because telling people it worked wouldn't mean anything. Other people would not know that they could reproduce my success by getting the same bits as me. What I really want to hear is: "I rebuilt gcc, binutils, the kernel, modutils, and GNU fileutils using gcc 2.96 delta 7.3, binutils 2.10.x delta 5.2, and glibc 2.1.95 delta 1.0", and then know EXACTLY how to reproduce that at home. Just saying "current CVS with patches" doesn't help with reproducibility. Jay