On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 10:51:37AM -0400, Jay Carlson wrote:
> Hey, don't blame me for the 2.0.6->2.0.7 version bump. I just grabbed the
> biggest version number on oss.sgi.com at the time and made my *trivial*
> patches to add softfloat to the build.
> Let me say that again: 2.0.7 is NOT MY FAULT.
I didn't blame you - I didn't even know how came up with 2.0.7-mips. When I
receive bug reports against the various 2.0.7 incarnations I just usually
find that they're that particular 2.0.7 version has bugs which were fixed
2.0.7 as used by the distributors is probably a reasonably sane libc.
Do your softfp patches somehow cause problems with hardware fp machines?
If not we could throw all things together.
> Seriously, I think the best thing we can do in this situation is start
> assigning our own linux-mips version numbers to combinations of upstream
> sources and our patches. So, we'd have something like:
> glibc 2.0.6 + 05lm patches (whatever) == glibc2.0.6 delta 1.0
> glibc 2.0.6 + 06lm patches (whatever) == glibc2.0.6 delta 1.1
> egcs 1.0.3a + ralf's current patches == egcs 1.0.3a delta 1.0
> egcs 1.0.3a + ralf's patches tomorrow == egcs 1.0.3a delta 2.0
> binutils 2.8.1 + standard patches == binutils 2.8.1 delta 1.0
> binutils 2.10.x on 20001014 == binutils 2.10.x delta 1.0
> binutils 2.10.x on 20001015 == binutils 2.10.x delta 2.1
> We need to give *names* to the versions of the software we're testing
> against. I haven't bothered trying a world rebuild against gcc 2.96.x
> because telling people it worked wouldn't mean anything. Other people would
> not know that they could reproduce my success by getting the same bits as
> What I really want to hear is: "I rebuilt gcc, binutils, the kernel,
> modutils, and GNU fileutils using gcc 2.96 delta 7.3, binutils 2.10.x delta
> 5.2, and glibc 2.1.95 delta 1.0", and then know EXACTLY how to reproduce
> that at home. Just saying "current CVS with patches" doesn't help with
Actually I'm trying to kill this entire naming problem by getting all
patches back to the respective maintainers. Result: no pending patches
for cvs binutils, only tiny ones for glibc-current and egcs-current.
Naming the patches is a nice idea but frequently I find my own patches
again on some server with creativly changed names. There is just nobody
who controls the namespace for those patches.