On 03/31/2016 02:49 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 03/31/2016 03:16 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> We should list it in F25 just to be clear and in the event we don't
>> get to it. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
>
> Okay. Do we have to do anything special once F25 branches, so that it's
> based of F24 and not rawhide?
I had not considered the ABI implications of F25 needing to be behind
rawhide in terms of ABI.
This is going to be more treacherous than I thought.
If we want Rawhide to tracker master, and we do, then when F25 branches
we need to go backwards in time to 2.23.1, reversing any ABI changes
that were made in 2.24.90 development.
I'm not sure how we're going to handle this, or if Fedora even understands
how carefully Fedora release cycles were synchronized with glibc release
cycles to avoid this.
The options as I see it are:
(a) Fedora Rawhide stops tracking upstream master, and is updated only
when glibc releases happen.
For this release, yes. Future releases can go back to tracking upstream
master.
(b) Fedora Rawhide is rolled back to 2.23.1 before F25 branches and
libabigail is used to do an ABI diff between F25 and the rollback,
any significant ABI changes are analyzed and a mass rebuild requested
if it's required.
There isn't going to be a mass rebuild for F25 per previous communications.
libabigail isn't powerful enough for this because the ABI impact can be
extremely subtle, especially for static libraries.
I think we need to reach out to fedora-devel and start a discussion
that
basically says:
"The accelerated F25 schedule means we are out of sync with upstream
glibc release and ABI guarantees. As such the F25 release may or may
not require a mass rebuild depending on the ABI differences that have
accumulated in Fedora Rawhide. Worst case we need to plan for a mass
rebuild in F25, best case, we don't."
*shrug* The answer will be that we shouldn't put non-releasable stuff in
rawhide, and that wouldn't even be wrong.
Florian