On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 20:59 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: [...] > Well I am not sure it can be handled at the glibc level: > - It's not clear to me how to detect the kernel support O32_FP64. We > indeed have a check for the kernel version in the glibc preinst check > in order to make sure all the syscalls used by the glibc are > available. New syscalls are only added in major upstream kernel > versions, so it's just fine to check for a minimum version. > Now we are talking about a change that is introduced only in Debian > kernels in a minor stable version. It's not clear to me which version > to use in the preinst check given people can use backport kernels or > use their own kernel.
Yes, I see the problem. I think the kernel ought to expose the supported ABIs through /proc, but even if that was added upstream and in Debian kernels it wouldn't help people using older custom kernels that do have the option enabled. You could do a .config check (looking in /boot/config-$(uname -r) and /proc/config.gz) but not all custom kernels will expose their config either way. > - Not all binaries depends on glibc. go binaries for example do not > depends on glibc. It's not clear to me if they will also start using > the new FP ABI. If so I guess we need to add the same check in all > their preinst scripts. Yes I did wonder about that after writing this. Ben. > So overall it looks like something to me that should go in the release > notes instead, just like we do for an ISA level raise. > > Aurelien > -- Ben Hutchings Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
