[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
> 
I appreciate that many will be against this idea, but I'd still like to 
discuss it: a binary repository for gentoo.

Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of bandwidth. 
That's easily got round. The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already 
compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising 
for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP 
etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.

If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo 
(so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit 
behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.

As to why I don't just do it myself, I think it's a bit silly to duplicate the 
compile that devs do anyway.

There are, after all, other nice things about gentoo besides compiling from 
source, which would always remain a choice.

I'm more interested in practical objections than philosophical debates, but as 
ever it's your free speech :)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 376 bytes --]

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

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 ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1899 bytes --]

Steve Long wrote: [Fri Nov 03 2006, 02:47:52AM CST]
> I appreciate that many will be against this idea, but I'd still like to 
> discuss it: a binary repository for gentoo.
> 
> Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of
> bandwidth.  That's easily got round. 

It is?

> The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already 
> compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising 
> for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP 
> etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.
> 
> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo 
> (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit 
> behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.

I think you'll find that there is little interest (among devs) in Gentoo
maintaining a binary sub-distribution.  My view, and for some time it's 
been our semi-official view, is that Gentoo can serve as a nice base for
creating a binary distribution, and we encourage people to do so, but
that it shouldn't be a part of Gentoo itself.

(That said, it's true that there is still a real need for better support
for binaries in portage, especially for handling USE conflicts.)

As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/3/06, Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Steve Long wrote: [Fri Nov 03 2006, 02:47:52AM CST]
> > The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
> > compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising
> > for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP
> > etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.

If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
up for debate.

Genux tried providing binary packages for generic Gentoo systems.
They ultimately failed as a business.

> > If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo
> > (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit
> > behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.

I think that's total rot, sorry.  A binary distro can break a system
just as much as a source based one.  A source-based distro is just as
practical in the enterprise; in fact, for web stuff, it's a lot more
practical, because it gives you the flexibility to build a box to your
exact needs, rather than having to compromise on what binary distro
vendors provide you with.

I think what you really need is an alternative package tree, one
that's versioned and tested as a whole, and one that isn't "live".

> As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
> that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
> users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
> strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
> install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
> and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)

Definitely.

Best regards,
Stu
--
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2872 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 08:47:52AM +0000, Steve Long wrote:
> As to why I don't just do it myself, I think it's a bit silly to duplicate the 
> compile that devs do anyway.
My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
There are too many things that are specific to my systems.

> I appreciate that many will be against this idea, but I'd still like to 
> discuss it: a binary repository for gentoo.
> 
> Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of bandwidth. 
> That's easily got round. The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already 
> compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising 
> for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP 
> etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.
> 
> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo 
> (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit 
> behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.
From all of the large Gentoo deployments I've done (one of which
exceeded 200 machines), you're approaching this the wrong way.

1. Consider where each enterprise needs customization: USE-flags, CFLAGs
This might be for example an LDAP or Kerberos-based shop, so they would
have their stuff built with those, or a hardened or selinux place. Or
SASL, or Java or any of a hundred different variables. This was after
all the point of USE flags in the first place.
2. From point one, it is clear that each enterprise needs to be able to
customize. They also need binaries. So we need a solution that combines
the two.
3. The solution is for each enterprise to have their own tinderbox /
build-machine. Tinderboxing is supported under catalyst, and I believe
there is at least one other tinderbox implementation around.
4. (Assuming catalyst, as it's the only tinderbox I'm familiar with) The
enterprise defines a specfile that describes each of their unique
environments, and feeds these to tinderbox. Tinderbox generates sets of
binpkgs for each environment, which the enterprise then deploys.

The above plan works perfectly - I use it in my enterprise deployments.
To use the example of my largest deployment that I mentioned above, my
specfiles were for the following:
- cluster nodes [128 machines]
- cluster master [1 machine]
- web servers [~60 machines]
- ldap servers [2 machines]
- dedicated file serving (network homedirs) [4 machines]
- infrastructure management [3 machines] 
- desktops [~60 machines]

The build-box role was actually undertaken by one of the infrastructure
management machines, since it doesn't need a dedicated machine.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 942 bytes --]

On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 15:45 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> 3. The solution is for each enterprise to have their own tinderbox /
> build-machine. Tinderboxing is supported under catalyst, and I believe
> there is at least one other tinderbox implementation around.
> 4. (Assuming catalyst, as it's the only tinderbox I'm familiar with) The
> enterprise defines a specfile that describes each of their unique
> environments, and feeds these to tinderbox. Tinderbox generates sets of
> binpkgs for each environment, which the enterprise then deploys.

Tinderbox (in catalyst) is designed more for testing.  Using the stage4
catalyst target will save you a good amount of time, since it doesn't go
through the unmerge/rsync/emerge cycle on each package.  Just FYI.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> From all of the large Gentoo deployments I've done (one of which
> exceeded 200 machines), you're approaching this the wrong way.
> ...
Thanks for the concise and clear explanation. It's the first time I've read
a description of how Gentoo might be used on an entreprise level. As Paul
says:
> It would be cool if you could write up a howto for others who want to do
this.
..although I figure if you know enough about gentoo to take a job
administering you should be able to follow that explanation well enough.

Grant Goodyear wrote:
>> Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of
>> bandwidth.  That's easily got round.
> 
> It is?
> 
Yes. I'd be happy to set up the site and I'm sure other users would be happy
to contribute.

>> The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
>> compile with standard C-flags right?)...We can always tag
>> pkgs with USE flags.
>> 
> 
> I think you'll find that there is little interest (among devs) in Gentoo
> maintaining a binary sub-distribution.  My view, and for some time it's
> been our semi-official view, is that Gentoo can serve as a nice base for
> creating a binary distribution, and we encourage people to do so, but
> that it shouldn't be a part of Gentoo itself.
> 
I accept that has been the position. As for devs not wanting to do it, I'm
thinking it would be part of the standard emerge process (ie binhost/PKGDIR
and -b) but you would need to add tagging of USE flags if the binary format
ATM does not include which flags were used.

So yes, it might add time/ network in terms of uploading but nothing else.

> (That said, it's true that there is still a real need for better support
> for binaries in portage, especially for handling USE conflicts.)
> 
I think the above would _start_ to handle that.

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
> binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
> whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
> up for debate.
> 
So you are looking to provide /some/ sort of binary packages as part of an
official Gentoo project then.

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
> There are too many things that are specific to my systems.
>
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.

Hopefully we could set up a collaborative build process so others could
upload their builds. In terms of security though, this would have to be
restricted to devs (of the new project).

>> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary
>> repo (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little
>> bit behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users
>> would.
> 
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think that's total rot, sorry.  A binary distro can break a system
> just as much as a source based one.  A source-based distro is just as
> practical in the enterprise; in fact, for web stuff, it's a lot more
> practical, because it gives you the flexibility to build a box to your
> exact needs, rather than having to compromise on what binary distro
> vendors provide you with.
and Grant Goodyear wrote:
> As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
> that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
> users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
> strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
> install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
> and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)
>
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*.

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think what you really need is an alternative package tree, one
> that's versioned and tested as a whole, and one that isn't "live".
> 
That's also been discussed on the fora. I think the idea was that if we have
the tree in svn (or whatever) there would be better scope for branches to
enable exactly that.

Regards,
Steve.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:30:02 +0000
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
> > There are too many things that are specific to my systems.
> >
> 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. 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.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/7/06, Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> I accept that has been the position. As for devs not wanting to do it, I'm
> thinking it would be part of the standard emerge process (ie binhost/PKGDIR
> and -b) but you would need to add tagging of USE flags if the binary format
> ATM does not include which flags were used.
>
> So yes, it might add time/ network in terms of uploading but nothing else.

Sorry, that's not correct.

If random-joe-developer simply uploaded whatever packages he has
locally to a central repository, you'll just end up with a large
binary mess.  The binary packages need to be built as a set, to be
sure that there is no ABI breakage going on.

> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
> > binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
> > whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
> > up for debate.
> >
> So you are looking to provide /some/ sort of binary packages as part of an
> official Gentoo project then.

See above.  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.

> 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.

Best regards,
Stu
--
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Duncan]

Michael Cummings <mcummings@gentoo.org> posted
1162902277.23009.2.camel@sys947.dtic.mil, excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 07:24:37 -0500:

> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> through their mail servers.

This is of interest to me since I'm on Cox too (tho of course not a dev so
no gentoo address to worry about).  Gentoo doesn't do SSMTP?  Or your
client of choice doesn't (I've not had to worry about it so honestly don't
know what *ix clients do or don't).

IIRC, Lance did say something in his post about contacting him if another
port was necessary.  That's the standard solution suggested to folks on
Cox, as Cox is primarily interested in blocking spambots, and legit mail
just gets caught in the cross-hairs.  They don't care about third party
mail as long as it's not on port 25, which the spambots of course use. 
Thus, no fancy encryption or the like needed, only a server listening on
something other than 25, and a client that can be set to send on something
other than 25.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Duncan]

Michael Cummings <mcummings@gentoo.org> posted
1162911839.20782.1.camel@sys947.dtic.mil, excerpted below, on  Tue, 07 Nov
2006 10:03:59 -0500:

> Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:).
> Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls
> is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being
> able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this
> still just a discussion (vs an impending action)?

As I've been reading it, they won't be actually stopping you from sending
anything.  Those who can send now without issue will continue to be able
to do so.  The problem and resolution is focused on those having issues
with SPF as currently configured.  They need a way to be able to send mail
without running into that SPF flagging, and the consensus that seems to be
developing is to leave the SPF in place as is, but change the policy to
encourage, rather than discourage, sending thru Gentoo's servers, so
the SPF entries don't /need/ to change.

IOW, I don't see anyone proposing changes for those who find their current
solution works.  The changes are for those having problems with the
current solution.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

[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

[Steve Long]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/8/06, Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> 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

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 990 bytes --]

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: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Steve Long]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> 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

Um, not sure what I misread, but I accept that for a binary distro, all
packages will have to be compiled under the same "system configuration" so
we can't possibly use pkgs compiled by the devs; they'd have to be
recompiled under the same setup (toolchain + all other pkgs as well.)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list