1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2011 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
[[libpthread_dlopen]], for example.
<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)
|
