open_issues/packaging_libpthread: New.

1 files changed, 47 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/packaging_libpthread.mdwn b/open_issues/packaging_libpthread.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7594ae76
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/packaging_libpthread.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_libpthread open_issue_glibc]]
+
+IRC, #hurd, 2010-07-31
+
+    <tschwinge> My idea was to have a separate libpthread package.  What do you think about that?
+    <youpi> in the long term, that can't work with glibc
+    <youpi> because of the thread stub stuff
+    <youpi> it's not really possible to keep synchronized
+    <youpi> because you have to decide which package you unpack first
+    <youpi> (when upgrading)
+    <tschwinge> Hmm, how is that different if two shared libraries are in one package vs. two packages?  It isn't atomic either way?  Aren't sonames / versioned library packages solving that?
+    <tschwinge> ... for incompatible forward changes?
+    <youpi> that'd be a mess to maintain
+    <youpi> Drepper doesn't have this constraint and thus adds members of private fields at will
+    <tschwinge> OK, but how is it different then if the libpthread is in the Hurd package?
+    <youpi> I'm not saying it's better to have libpthread in the Hurd package
+    <tschwinge> OK.
+    <youpi> I'm saying it's useless to package it separately when Drepper makes everything to have us put it along glibc
+    <tschwinge> Then, to goal is to have it in glibc?
+    <tschwinge> OK.   :-)
+    <tschwinge> OK, I can accommodate to that.  Isn't not that we'd want to switch libpthread to something else so quickly.
+    <tschwinge> So our official goal is to have libpthread in glibc, at least for Debian purposese?
+    <youpi> for any port purpose
+    <tschwinge> Ack.
+    <youpi> provided you're using glibc, you're deemed to ship libpthread with it
+    <youpi> because of the strong relations Drepper puts between them
+    <youpi> (just to remind: we already have bugs just because our current libpthread isn't bound enough to glibc: dlopen()ing a library depending on libpthread doesn't work, for instance)
+    <pinotree> yeah, pthread-stubs is linked to almost everywhere -lpthread isn't used
+    <pinotree> (would be nice to not have those issues anymore...)
+    <tschwinge> So -- what do we need to put it into glibc?  We can make libpthread a Git submodule (or move the code; but it's shared also for Neal's viengoos, so perhaps the submodule is better?), plus some glibc make foo, plus some other adaptions (stubs, etc.)
+    <tschwinge> Does that sound about right, or am I missing something fundamental?
+    <youpi> I actually don't know what a git submodule permits :)
+    <youpi> looks like a good thing for this, yes
+    <tschwinge> Unfortunately I can't allocate much time at the moment to work on this.  :-/
+    <youpi> well, as long as I know where we're going, I can know how to package stuff in Debian
+    <tschwinge> That sounds like a plan to me.  libpthread -> glibc as submodule.
+    <youpi> (note: actually, the interface between glibc and the libpthread is the responsibility of the libpthread: it gives a couple of .c files to be shipped in libc.so)