On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:51:37AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:18:01PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > > My thought is that gcc-3.3 will be out soon enough for us to use that. > > > But for future coming stable gcc-3.3, we should start to support tls > > and nptl, and I already start to investigate. I think we should have > > two libc6: libc6-linuxthreads (linuxthreads) and libc6-nptl (nptl). > > This means that now the name libc6 becomes virtual package or > > something. > > I haven't investigated - does the core glibc library actually change > based on each add on? It would be nice to have just the pthreads change > for two reasons:
I think the library changes. But we don't want to move away from a real libc6 package IMO. Anyone who wants the NPTL support installed can live with having the LinuxThreads support installed also. That's how Red Hat does it too, IIRC. [It's essentially a hwcap thing] > Less to switch from one to the other, and it would be interesting to be > able to use apt-cache to show which packages used pthreads. > > > > The biggest problem is that Debian's kernels don't have futex > > > support. I've heard that RedHat has some solution for automatically > > > detecting which they should use, but I don't know anything about it. > > > I hope someone intent to package redhat9's 2.4 Ingo's backport patch. > > BTW, I use the latest kernel on my some machines, so it's not problem > > for me. > > I keep wondering why it's not been accepted upstream. I don't follow > Linux kernel development anymore, so I don't know the story. Because 2.4 is a maintenance line, and the patch is gigantic. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
