On 19 Apr 2016 04:21, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, E, 18.04.2016 kell 12:38, kirjutas Mike Frysinger: > > On 16 Apr 2016 09:23, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > So why on earth are we applying a random patch that upstream is not > > > using > > > > not everyone uses glibc, and glibc *is* moving in this > > direction. Gentoo > > is simply accelerating the change ... otherwise glibc will take > > longer to do the actual migration. > > You don't need to break everyone's ~arch for dubious glibc benefits, > which could be done by a p.masked version and a tinderbox run. > I am not your tinderbox dummy having to waste time on this to maintain > my own ~arch stuff.
i waited until the known bugs died down. i don't have access to a tinderbox system myself. > > packages failing to build under glibc already > > fail to build in other environments. > > That is simply not true except for the part where it is. highlighting one system where it's working for you doesn't mean all systems behave that way. there's even an autoconf macro specifically to deal with this and has been for years. they wouldn't have written & deployed it for fun. > at least not to the extent you make it sound. not today, but as i said, we want to move multiple libraries (at least glibc, uClibc, musl, and bionic) in that direction. the current behavior violates the POSIX standard. > Why are all the concerns raised at e.g > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94231 not resolved then? what exactly are you expecting here ? i'm not an X.org dev. i can't fix code in that project for them. all the questions posed have been answered in the bug. it's merely waiting for them to actually commit code. > Over there you even told you won't be including this patch in Gentoo, > but get it trickled in from upstream once they judge it as good to go. no idea where you're getting reading this. i never said that. > Instead you go ahead and unmask this without removing the gentoo > specific sysmacros header removal, knowing FULLY WELL that you break > ~arch for a lot of things again, no. read what i actually said, and read the actual bug open on the topic. most of the packages i was aware of were fixed, and there were only like 2 or 3 left assigned to projects/devs who are not me. once things moved into ~arch, we started getting more bug reports, not before. > Even todays git of man-pages tells that including sys/types.h is > sufficient and the correct thing to do to get makedev/major/minor. and we've already been discussing fixing that. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
