Re: Bug#850887: Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug
Hi, On 12/01/17 14:54, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > I would like to point out that it would be preferable if, in case a patch is > preferable over going back to the last know version to work, either Matthias > or a mips porter points out which of the two proposed patches is preferable. > > For the time being I'm testing the patch I submited to the bug, but I have no > preference over any of them (nor technical grounds to discuss). Both patches posted in the upstream bug should work. The first one fixes a bug in the MIPS back end so that local symbols are sorted before global symbols. This is probably the safer (although larger) patch because it only touches the MIPS back end to try and bring it into line with other architectures. The second patch prevents the questionable local symbols from every appearing (so no sorting is necessary). This should also be correct, although it will visibly change the contents of the dynamic symbol table on all arches so I am slightly more apprehensive because of that. Side note: the patch you uploaded is not totally correct because it isn't applied when building cross binutils (__mips__ will not be defined there). Thanks, James signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#850887: Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug
As a FYI, Matthias wrote to me in IRC just now indicating that he plans to upload a patch in the next couple of days. (He needs to get to the location where he has the right environment before preparing the upload). As such, I'm planning on holding off on calling for any votes.
Re: Bug#850887: Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug
I would like to point out that it would be preferable if, in case a patch is preferable over going back to the last know version to work, either Matthias or a mips porter points out which of the two proposed patches is preferable. For the time being I'm testing the patch I submited to the bug, but I have no preference over any of them (nor technical grounds to discuss). Thanks, Lisandro. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#850887: Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 16:56:05 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > Hi. > I'd really appreciate comments from debian-release on this issue. > Would debian-release like us to take this up? > If so, I have a proposal for how to fast-track this situation, but I am > only comfortable doing that if the release team is involved. > Hi Sam, I was actually about to involve the TC (from a release management perspective) when Lisandro did. Here's a timeline I think summarizes events ttbomk: - on 31 October 2016, the release team finalized the list of release architectures for stretch, including mips, mipsel and mips64el - on 2 November 2016, the binutils maintainer switch from the upstream 2.27 branch to upstream trunk, which caused a number of regressions - on 5 November 2016 was the transition freeze for stretch, which is intended to reduce the amount of churn affecting many packages at once - one of the regressions is still unfixed to this day, and blocks a number of package migrations to testing, including library transitions and RC bug fixes, to the point that if it doesn't get fixed in the next few days the options are to either delay the stretch freeze (planned for 5 February) or drop three architectures from stretch; I feel like a freeze delay might end up being necessary due to this bug anyway, even if it does get fixed now - early this week Lisandro finally NMUed with a patch for this bug, only to be promptly reverted by the maintainer I think it's way past time we fixed this, to avoid any further harm to the stretch release. That may mean reverting to the 2.27 branch, reverting specific changes from our 2.28 branch snapshot, or applying a proposed fix ahead of upstream, I'm not picky about specifics. Help from the TC in getting to a quick resolution would be very much welcome. Thanks, Julien signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#850887: Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug
Hi. I'd really appreciate comments from debian-release on this issue. Would debian-release like us to take this up? If so, I have a proposal for how to fast-track this situation, but I am only comfortable doing that if the release team is involved.
