Re: [arch-dev-public] request for toolchain signoffs
ok, now no major problems so far. at least nothing we can fix (the dns resolving issue http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12215). so please give me your signoffs to move kernel-headers, glibc, binutils, gcc(.-libs). -Andy
Am Sonntag 30 November 2008 19:25:50 schrieb Andreas Radke:
ok, now no major problems so far. at least nothing we can fix (the dns resolving issue http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12215).
so please give me your signoffs to move kernel-headers, glibc, binutils, gcc(.-libs).
-Andy
I have compiled quite a lot with new gcc. No problems so far. I'll sign this off for i686 and x86_64. -- Pierre Schmitz Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de
Am Sonntag 30 November 2008 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
Am Sonntag 30 November 2008 19:25:50 schrieb Andreas Radke:
ok, now no major problems so far. at least nothing we can fix (the dns resolving issue http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12215).
so please give me your signoffs to move kernel-headers, glibc, binutils, gcc(.-libs).
-Andy
I have compiled quite a lot with new gcc. No problems so far. I'll sign this off for i686 and x86_64. kernel compile still works :D, signoff for both arches
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am Sonntag 30 November 2008 19:25:50 schrieb Andreas Radke:
ok, now no major problems so far. at least nothing we can fix (the dns resolving issue http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12215).
so please give me your signoffs to move kernel-headers, glibc, binutils, gcc(.-libs).
-Andy
I have compiled quite a lot with new gcc. No problems so far. I'll sign this off for i686 and x86_64.
I'll add another i686. Allan
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 19:25 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
ok, now no major problems so far. at least nothing we can fix (the dns resolving issue http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12215).
so please give me your signoffs to move kernel-headers, glibc, binutils, gcc(.-libs).
-Andy
No major problems with glibc, but should we move this, while we know this breaks DNS resolving for people that have a broken DNS server? I solved it at the office by installing pdns-recursor and using localhost as DNS server, but if this glibc reaches the next installer ISO, it's not so easy to install pdns-recursor there, which breaks network installations.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 19:25 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
ok, now no major problems so far. at least nothing we can fix (the dns resolving issue http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12215).
so please give me your signoffs to move kernel-headers, glibc, binutils, gcc(.-libs).
-Andy
No major problems with glibc, but should we move this, while we know this breaks DNS resolving for people that have a broken DNS server? I solved it at the office by installing pdns-recursor and using localhost as DNS server, but if this glibc reaches the next installer ISO, it's not so easy to install pdns-recursor there, which breaks network installations.
I was of the same mindset here- does it kill us to sit on this and wait for a fix? I'd prefer to not close 5 bugs a day saying "won't fix", and signing off and moving broken stuff to core seems pretty sloppy of us from the end user's perspective. -Dan
Am Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:08:54 -0600 schrieb "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
No major problems with glibc, but should we move this, while we know this breaks DNS resolving for people that have a broken DNS server? I solved it at the office by installing pdns-recursor and using localhost as DNS server, but if this glibc reaches the next installer ISO, it's not so easy to install pdns-recursor there, which breaks network installations.
I was of the same mindset here- does it kill us to sit on this and wait for a fix? I'd prefer to not close 5 bugs a day saying "won't fix", and signing off and moving broken stuff to core seems pretty sloppy of us from the end user's perspective.
-Dan
I've sent a reminder to the glibc list but I don't expect any (helpful) answer. We have the same state of checkout that is used in Fedora 10 release and in their devel branch. You know glibc is maintained mainly by RedHat/Fedora. http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/NEWS?rev=1.196&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=glibc Version 2.9 * Unified lookup for getaddrinfo: IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are now looked up at the same time. Implemented by Ulrich Drepper. To me it seems there isn't much we can do here. And we will hardly see any fix other than to rollback the glibc. The more glibc2.9 will be used the harder will the pressure become to dns server admins to fix it. Afaik OpenSuSE will also use glibc2.9 in their upcoming release. For me it's not a showstopper. Maybe it's worth a new item though. Opinions? -Andy
Am Montag 01 Dezember 2008 15:49:59 schrieb Andreas Radke:
For me it's not a showstopper. Maybe it's worth a new item though. Opinions?
A workaround could be to disable the ipv6 module, right? If that's the case I don't see any real showstopper here. -- Pierre Schmitz Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de
I've pushed a glibc 2.9-2 to testing. I have added all changes made in Fedora's FC10 2.9-3 rpm. They have included some minor fixes and a workaround for the name resolving issue. This should fix our FS #12215. Now we need to know if there are still DNS problems. If it's solved I'd like to push it quickly to core. New gcc versions are not far away... -Andy
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 20:23 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
I've pushed a glibc 2.9-2 to testing. I have added all changes made in Fedora's FC10 2.9-3 rpm. They have included some minor fixes and a workaround for the name resolving issue. This should fix our FS #12215.
Now we need to know if there are still DNS problems. If it's solved I'd like to push it quickly to core. New gcc versions are not far away...
-Andy
Signoff for x86_64. Works fine here, and the DNS resolving issue with our broken office loadbalancer is fixed.
Am Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:48 +0100 schrieb Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net>:
Signoff for x86_64. Works fine here, and the DNS resolving issue with our broken office loadbalancer is fixed.
please some more signoffs. i'd like to move it as soon as possible. -Andy
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
Am Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:48 +0100 schrieb Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net>:
Signoff for x86_64. Works fine here, and the DNS resolving issue with our broken office loadbalancer is fixed.
please some more signoffs. i'd like to move it as soon as possible.
Signoff both arches.
participants (7)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Allan McRae
-
Andreas Radke
-
Dan McGee
-
Jan de Groot
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Tobias Powalowski