From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: bug#30537: glibc 2.26 refuses to run on CentOS 6.8 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:52:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20180220115221.GA17373@jasmine.lan> References: <87eflgstqt.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <20180220012229.GA28522@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45768) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eo6Tp-00063n-Bh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:53:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eo6Tm-0008VJ-Ar for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:53:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:44295) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eo6Tm-0008V5-1l for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:53:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eo6Tl-0002ea-OP for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:53:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180220012229.GA28522@jasmine.lan> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 30537@debbugs.gnu.org --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 08:22:29PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > My questions are, how does the glibc team choose the minimum kernel > version? What could go wrong if we apply this patch and somebody uses > Guix on a pre-3.2.0 kernel? >=20 > Perhaps they simply chose to not support glibc on any kernel that is not > supported upstream; 3.2.x is the oldest supported release series. But, > we should have some idea of their reasoning, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, the discussion started on the libc-alpha mailing list in January 2016: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-01/msg00885.html =2E.. and continued into February: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-02/msg00002.html These messages can provide some useful context. --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlqMC/EACgkQJkb6MLrK fwg4xA//c+wceGCluM0jJlFDxQe8OGGGp1CMbybfNB1ZQ5AKh2b57SH90gEdnKf4 rs/C9gsuy2DSfQOSVy4Z8zEZQwAi8CgDqgFkkOFZtALXaujdEOlW9TAtM1lkikPW LVqn+18ZofElNtGPltVhcs713p7NwL03ZyH7TjquFt/gtvV/xgdDFNMLytKKUEHT j/zJygmIiRhmGDSdqwOWpaFlyhiz3nosX0spNRzTtRbAh2OG+fsG+rg8PRWynjCj D/KBXSDyO/g9sCSALD0Gvl2uCLt/h5bNYWoON7XjrdxBrHQQsZGKuLy7KgHD+25X k1ZmOWoj6ai7PDqgkJkZB3nB0+c3rE713sSBaiLBINVzT7XU7uRrV3Em/pJU/KDw LFdryxyxOPY59+BqjKixP2j2EVAO3ITkwOmuYBYnGtHJM3MOdfgfueJJixRO7U8m 4kLZYYQKghiLSRpMOdRmdEtqgcCNwbZJh8UpKYDFeZm81xHjinf0QuwSObTQ1qGX CSPxBiLUI+mHTuVArH6PMo8RHZaXCIa6/rDCXykznuQI5zjFZ2wihKuNOaLtVXHJ 3bQ+IEfawuI+upth8/7CUUeeg+gCH94GPRxoTRSoB8qDgQbaofbKp3/zUgFeEO9w i8gmyIHfwMYTBBu34h4n4cmd+i0gYHzmahFVOdbabew6yTefts4= =vc4j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wac7ysb48OaltWcw--