Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 04:47, Steve Long wrote: > I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for > C++. Is this such a problem for C? I thought that was the whole point of > the Linux ABI (so developers can in fact use the same binary for different > distros.) > > I'm guessing you're going to point out all the posts about recompiling your > whole system after a toolchain upgrade. > > So if I understand this right, we can't all compile for the same ABI since > it changes according to which version of the C compiler/ glibc you're > using. The problem is that for the applications, it is not only glibc+gcc that determines the ABI. It is all libraries used (sometimes useflags even make a difference) that are also ABI for applications. That would lead to a gazillion configurations that would be nearly impossible to track. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpVlCyUrNbpK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On 11/8/06, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I was wondering about was what mechanism you might use to provide those binary packages; would other devs also be contributing? Or is there simply nothing that might be useful for a binary distro? Wrt the Seeds project, it's too early to have definitive answers for these questions, sorry. Speculatively, we'd have a binary repository for each seed that could be rsynced down to your local system. But it's just speculation at this stage. I understand what you're saying in the sense that binary distros break too. Is that what you mean? Partly. The point I'm trying to get across is the system breakage that users have to put up with has little-to-nothing to do with the fact that Gentoo is a source-based distro. Is it correct that versioning the tree would solve it by allowing various releases to stick to lower versions of packages until they have been QAed by the gentoo community? Yes. The Gentoo package tree is a "live" tree - whatever we commit goes straight out to the rsync mirrors for users to download and use. Live trees are not compatible w/ a high quality product. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:47, Steve Long wrote: > I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for > C++. Is this such a problem for C? i think you misread his e-mail regardless, stable ABIs guarantee forward compatibility, not backwards you're also not considering the fact that any ABI can have a bump in its version # and thus break things, not just C++ -mike pgpJPoYeCWpoq.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Marius Mauch wrote: >> Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are >> advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would >> make your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags, >> then at least the pkg is a start- if others want different settings >> they can compile their own. > > The (well, at least one) problem is that you're only thinking about > individual packages. However to be of any real use you'd need all > packages to use the same system configuration. Otherwise you'll get ABI > breakages and other runtime errors. Stuart mentioned the ABI problem as well: > The binary packages need to be built as a set, to be sure that there is no > ABI breakage going on. I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for C++. Is this such a problem for C? I thought that was the whole point of the Linux ABI (so developers can in fact use the same binary for different distros.) I'm guessing you're going to point out all the posts about recompiling your whole system after a toolchain upgrade. So if I understand this right, we can't all compile for the same ABI since it changes according to which version of the C compiler/ glibc you're using. > Oh, and people using those binaries > would ahve to use the same system configuration as well (or at least a > very similar one). > This pretty much rules out devs submitting home-build binary packages > of ebuilds they maintain to a central repository. > Fair do. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
[I'm separating the ABI issue into the thread below from Marius Mauch] Stuart Herbert wrote: > I'm interested in providing binary packages for updating > systems, yes - systems that are running seeds. Whether they're > provided through Gentoo or not hasn't yet been discussed at all. We > need to actually finish and release the LAMP Server seed first :) > > I'm not interested in providing binary packages for a generic Gentoo > 'binary' release. My personal opinion is that this isn't what Gentoo > is about. Fair enough. It's your time, after all. What I was wondering about was what mechanism you might use to provide those binary packages; would other devs also be contributing? Or is there simply nothing that might be useful for a binary distro? > >> I accept that for the enterprise compiling from source may well be >> better, based on Robin Johnson's reply. However this point about system >> breakage is serious *for users*. > > Yes - but binary packages on their own have nothing to do with > preventing system breakage. You're chasing completely the wrong bus > to solve that problem. > OK my bad. I understand what you're saying in the sense that binary distros break too. Is that what you mean? Is it correct that versioning the tree would solve it by allowing various releases to stick to lower versions of packages until they have been QAed by the gentoo community? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 03 November 2006 03:47, Steve Long wrote: >> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption > > Gentoo as an entire whole is not really "serious" about anything > I thought you were serious about being a great project. > last i checked, it was the "server" project who was working on the > whole "enterprise" thing ... those guys are serious about targetting the > enterprise so why do we need to discuss it ? Well, I've found the discussion interesting so far. And enterprises don't just use servers. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
