On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 03:03:38AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 10/8/21 03:00, Rob Browning wrote:
> > If we've never had a 3.0 viable for alpha, for example, then we can of
> > course do whatever we like, with the realization that if we disable
> > threads there now, we may be stuc
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> The alpha architecture is not part of any distribution which is why this
> argument is moot. I was not asking for this option to be set to an release
> architecture.
>
> Also, *if* we break the ABI, we can just rebuild all affected packages. We
> do that with b
Rob Browning writes:
> Given that, I think we may have at least these constraints:
Oh, and I haven't figured out what the current situation is wrt the
affected architectures on this front yet -- was just describing the
constraints.
If we've never had a 3.0 viable for alpha, for example, then we
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> Without --without-threads, guile would not build on SMP systems and even
> the built package would crash on SMP systems.
>
> If disabling threads would break the ABI, we could just rebuild the affected
> reverse dependencies on the builds using the normal binNM
On 10/8/21 03:00, Rob Browning wrote:
> If we've never had a 3.0 viable for alpha, for example, then we can of
> course do whatever we like, with the realization that if we disable
> threads there now, we may be stuck with that choice until 3.2.
We can always break the ABI in a controlled manner.
Hello Rob!
On 10/8/21 02:56, Rob Browning wrote:
> I've checked with upstream, and while they were not certain that
> changing the --with-threads setting still breaks the library API, they
> thought it probably did, which I believe means we have to assume that it
> does (or could in the future), i
6 matches
Mail list logo
