Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: 5.1 vs. 6.0_BETA
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Aleksey Cheusov
Feb 24, 2012, 4:51:57 PM2/24/12
to
>> Does NetBSD keep libraries from base (except X11 libs)
>> backward compatible between major releases?
> Yes, that is the goal.
After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
mediatomb, for example, says
/usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
This change probably comes from here
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
Is this breakage expected?
> --
> Matthias Scheler http://zhadum.org.uk/
--
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.
>> backward compatible between major releases?
> Yes, that is the goal.
After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
mediatomb, for example, says
/usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
This change probably comes from here
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
Is this breakage expected?
> --
> Matthias Scheler http://zhadum.org.uk/
--
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.
Joerg Sonnenberger
Feb 24, 2012, 5:15:16 PM2/24/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:51:57AM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
> applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
Try the attached patch.
> After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
> applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
Joerg
Matt Thomas
Feb 24, 2012, 5:41:17 PM2/24/12
to
I'm wondering why these apps need access to __cerror since it's not
a public ABI.
Joerg Sonnenberger
Feb 24, 2012, 6:26:07 PM2/24/12
to
use it. Nowadays they have a custom (hidden) copy.
Joerg
Matthias Scheler
Feb 25, 2012, 8:58:02 AM2/25/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:51:57AM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> >> Does NetBSD keep libraries from base (except X11 libs)
> >> backward compatible between major releases?
>
> > Yes, that is the goal.
>
> >> backward compatible between major releases?
>
> > Yes, that is the goal.
>
> After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
> applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
>
> applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
>
> mediatomb, for example, says
>
> /usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
>
> This change probably comes from here
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
>
> Is this breakage expected?
It doesn't matter IMHO whether it is expected or not. It is simply
>
> /usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
>
> This change probably comes from here
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
>
> Is this breakage expected?
not acceptable. Backwards compatibility has always been and still
is an important goal for NetBSD.
Can you please submit a PR and notify release engineering about
the problem?
Kind regards
Izumi Tsutsui
Feb 25, 2012, 9:05:00 AM2/25/12
to
> Can you please submit a PR and notify release engineering about
> the problem?
Already filed as PR/45973.
> the problem?
---
Izumi Tsutsui
Manuel Bouyer
Feb 25, 2012, 10:21:06 AM2/25/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:58:02PM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> > After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
> > applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
> >
> > mediatomb, for example, says
> >
> > /usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
> >
> > This change probably comes from here
> >
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
> >
> > Is this breakage expected?
>
> It doesn't matter IMHO whether it is expected or not. It is simply
> not acceptable. Backwards compatibility has always been and still
> is an important goal for NetBSD.
Sure. I think this has to be fixed before 6.0_BETA can be officially
> > After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
> > applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
> >
> > mediatomb, for example, says
> >
> > /usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
> >
> > This change probably comes from here
> >
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
> >
> > Is this breakage expected?
>
> It doesn't matter IMHO whether it is expected or not. It is simply
> not acceptable. Backwards compatibility has always been and still
> is an important goal for NetBSD.
announced.
Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
fix ?
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
Joerg Sonnenberger
Feb 25, 2012, 10:32:21 AM2/25/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 04:21:06PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:58:02PM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> > > After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
> > > applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
> > >
> > > mediatomb, for example, says
> > >
> > > /usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
> > >
> > > This change probably comes from here
> > >
> > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
> > >
> > > Is this breakage expected?
> >
> > It doesn't matter IMHO whether it is expected or not. It is simply
> > not acceptable. Backwards compatibility has always been and still
> > is an important goal for NetBSD.
>
> Sure. I think this has to be fixed before 6.0_BETA can be officially
> announced.
> Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
> to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
> fix ?
We've done quite some work to avoid bumping the libc major so far, so I
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:58:02PM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> > > After updating the system from 5.1 to 6.0_BETA I've found that a lot of
> > > applications built for 5.1 stop working due to lack of __cerror in libc.
> > >
> > > mediatomb, for example, says
> > >
> > > /usr/lib/librt.so.0: Undefined symbol "__cerror" (symnum = 12)
> > >
> > > This change probably comes from here
> > >
> > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2010/12/10/msg004230.html
> > >
> > > Is this breakage expected?
> >
> > It doesn't matter IMHO whether it is expected or not. It is simply
> > not acceptable. Backwards compatibility has always been and still
> > is an important goal for NetBSD.
>
> Sure. I think this has to be fixed before 6.0_BETA can be officially
> announced.
> Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
> to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
> fix ?
don't think we should do it now. Let's look at it as project for
netbsd-7. The patch gives all the benefits of the original behavior
(local jumps / calls), but restores the compat behavior for old
dependent libraries.
Joerg
Manuel Bouyer
Feb 25, 2012, 11:43:13 AM2/25/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 04:32:21PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > announced.
> > Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
> > to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
> > fix ?
>
> We've done quite some work to avoid bumping the libc major so far, so I
I misunderstood, I though the problem was in librt, and so the
> > announced.
> > Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
> > to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
> > fix ?
>
> We've done quite some work to avoid bumping the libc major so far, so I
major of librt should be bumped.
Of course, we don't want to bump libc major at this time.
Aleksey, can you test the patch ?
Matthias Scheler
Feb 25, 2012, 1:37:26 PM2/25/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 04:21:06PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > It doesn't matter IMHO whether it is expected or not. It is simply
> > not acceptable. Backwards compatibility has always been and still
> > is an important goal for NetBSD.
>
> Sure. I think this has to be fixed before 6.0_BETA can be officially
> > It doesn't matter IMHO whether it is expected or not. It is simply
> > not acceptable. Backwards compatibility has always been and still
> > is an important goal for NetBSD.
>
> Sure. I think this has to be fixed before 6.0_BETA can be officially
> announced.
> Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
> to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
> fix ?
The cons against bumping the major is that it won't fix system
> Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
> to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
> fix ?
that have already been upgrade to NetBSD 6.0_BETA. The user
would have to manually install a "librt" from e.g NetBSD 5.1.2.
Christos Zoulas
Feb 25, 2012, 6:25:03 PM2/25/12
to
In article <2012022518...@colwyn.zhadum.org.uk>,
People who installed BETA know that they are not getting a fully
working product. Bumping the major on libc after almost too decades
just for that is...
christos
working product. Bumping the major on libc after almost too decades
just for that is...
christos
Aleksey Cheusov
Feb 25, 2012, 7:40:13 PM2/25/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 04:32:21PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 04:32:21PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> > announced.
>> > Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
>> > to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
>> > fix ?
>>
>> > Could bumping the major number of these libraries be an alternative
>> > to exporting __cerror again ? What are the pros and cons of each
>> > fix ?
>>
>> We've done quite some work to avoid bumping the libc major so far, so I
>
> I misunderstood, I though the problem was in librt, and so the
> major of librt should be bumped.
> Of course, we don't want to bump libc major at this time.
>
> Aleksey, can you test the patch ?
I appologise for so long delay but I have not tested it yet.
>
> I misunderstood, I though the problem was in librt, and so the
> major of librt should be bumped.
> Of course, we don't want to bump libc major at this time.
>
> Aleksey, can you test the patch ?
First, we selebrated a birth day of my son. This took some time.
Second, my home system running NetBSD is very unstable (amd64),
I wrote about it in netbsd-users recently and the problem persists.
Just a few minutes ago it hanged up again. Believe it or not
I tried to reboot it but doesn't boot at all.
The kernel crashed with ddb prompt. Maybe this is a hardware issue,
I'm not sure.
So, I need some time to restore my system and some diagnostics.
Later (sunday) I'll try to reproduce the problem on my system at work
where I also use NetBSD (i386).
Alternatively, any developer can test Joerg's patch because
the problem is easily reproducible with, for example, mediatomb package.
Aleksey Cheusov
Feb 27, 2012, 4:31:10 AM2/27/12
to
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> Aleksey, can you test the patch ?
Joerg's patch solves the problem with mediatomb.
> Aleksey, can you test the patch ?
Manuel Bouyer
Feb 27, 2012, 6:03:40 AM2/27/12
to
Joerg, can you commit it and request a pullup for netbsd-6 ?
thanks
0 new messages