What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

lano1106 · 2021-10-24 05:40:50

glibc 2.34 has been released in last August

and gcc 11.2 has been released in July.

Before those 2 last releases, new releases of those 2 components were usually available pretty fast considering that they are very core components of the distribution and any bug fixes and improvements in them can have a considerable impact on the overall performance of a system.

Is there any technical issues, manpower issues behind the delay?

I usually have many other things to worry about and those packages arrive way before I start wondering when they are going to be available but TBH, those 2 packages are among those that I eagerly wait to upgrade on my system, and now that they have been out of date for months... I am starting wonder why...

I did google about it and I could not find anything on the topic... So here it is... I am here asking if someone is aware of the situation... I have noticed that those 2 packages have inherited a new maintainer... Could it be why??

jasonwryan · 2021-10-24 05:42:54

See #6 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=130138

lano1106 · 2021-10-24 05:55:37

ok but besides when it is ready

is it possible to get some insight and discuss it?

I must not be the only one wondering

New kernels are available within days...

Are core devs preparing a big change soon? Can the community members/users know about it and perhaps contribute or those are secret and opaque considerations that outsiders cannot know about?

A 4 months long delay release is an unusually long delay for those very important components... AFAIK, this has never happened in the last 15 years that I have used ArchLinux...

Last edited by lano1106 (2021-10-24 05:56:25)

jasonwryan · 2021-10-24 06:47:26

What does it matter if it is taking longer than usual? If it is such an issue, build it yourself.

Threads like these for a rolling release distro are a complete waste of time. Packages are updated when the maintainer can get to them. They are volunteers, they have lives. It is the middle of a fucking pandemic...

There may be some technical reason why an update is not possible, but I'm not going to search the mail archives to see if there is.

seth · 2021-10-24 07:42:08

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=270383

Are core devs preparing a big change soon? Can the community members/users know about it and perhaps contribute or those are secret and opaque considerations that outsiders cannot know about?

They smuggle the vaccine into the core repo because nerds don't eat lettuce…
(iow, uttering crazy conspiracy theories make you sound crazy - google for the vaccine and salad dressing. The state of the species is: S.A.D.)

Allan · 2021-10-24 08:48:32

The three toolchain packages had versions released at once (gcc, glibc, binutils) - admittedly gcc was a minor bump and did not even require a bootstrap... Anyway, that many updates at once tends to take a bit of testing. Particularly as this is the new toolchain maintainers second toolchain update and the previous maintainer is no longer around to provide advice, and the one before that retired from packaging years ago.

Sinistar · 2021-10-30 21:14:38

for the fun of it, or the frustration of it I decided to give this a go. Built in the order: linux-api-headers->glibc->binutils->gcc->binutils->glibc and then valgrind.
All built in a clean chroot using a custom repo, and slightly modified build packages from Arch.

linux-api-header-5.14.15
glibc-2.34 (removed patches and had to remove -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 from makepkg.conf for it to build)
binutils-2.37
gcc-11.2.0 (the isl source changed to "https://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware … urce/l/isl" and change the link for it in prepare, taken from the aur glibc-git PKGBUILD)
ect... I did set --enable-kernel=5.14.15 for glibc, but I am guessing you wont want to do that since you have to support older kernels

have built the kernel, llvm, clang ect... with it so far.

don't ask why I did this, I guess as a challenge.

Allan · 2021-10-30 21:45:35

I have PKGBUILDs for what I am using here:
https://github.com/allanmcrae/toolchain-git/

Note... this combines gcc-libs, gcc, and gcc-fotran into one package and gets rid of gcc-ada, gcc-objc, gcc-go and gcc-d. It also removes multilib support because I don't want it... But it includes many fixes for the build and addresses testsuite issues that have been ignored for years. It also builds from the head of the latest git release branch for each component so you get the latest fixes.

Edit: BTW, the build order should be linux-api-headers->glibc->binutils->gcc->glibc->binutils->gcc - the order documented in the Arch PKGBUILDs is not fully reproducible.

Sinistar · 2021-10-30 21:49:06

Thanks for the link.

Rimio · 2021-10-31 12:07:10

This is indeed very peculiar, I couldn't find anything relevant on arch-general or arch-dev-public. Meanwhile gdb alone got bumped to the latest version and (I think!) minor issues are starting to show.

Barthalion · 2021-11-16 17:56:07

the previous maintainer is no longer around to provide advice, and the one before that retired from packaging years ago

It is almost as if previous toolchain maintainers died and the new maintainer couldn't ask them any questions!

Allan · 2021-11-16 23:57:56

You are dead to us Bart!

Xyne · 2021-11-20 02:56:24

I'm just chiming in to say thank you to everyone who actually deals with this so that the rest of us don't have to.
Also, someone should graph the burnout rate for gcc+glibc packagers. With before and after photos as a warning to others

Toolybird · 2021-11-24 01:40:41

Allan wrote:

I have PKGBUILDs for what I am using here:
https://github.com/allanmcrae/toolchain-git/

Heh, some nice fixes in there! <grin>

But seriously, IMHO the toolchain is a weak point in Arch. So many talented dev's.. so little interest in a critical part of the system. Previous maintainers have done a great job in keeping it working, but IMHO there really should be a team dedicated to toolchain packaging and maint'. It's a bit much to dump it all on to 1 person.

In my experience the toolchain is not as daunting as it seems. Just needs some dedication and a good amount of testing. As evidenced by bug reports from yours truly, there are some Arch users with domain knowledge. It would be great if there was some kind of toolchain Working Group so that interested folks could pitch in to try and keep things moving along. Would really like to see the x86-64-v3 thing kick-started.

My 2 cents as a random Arch fan.

Allan · 2021-11-24 03:43:48

Toolybird wrote:

Allan wrote:
I have PKGBUILDs for what I am using here:
https://github.com/allanmcrae/toolchain-git/
Heh, some nice fixes in there! <grin>

Thanks for providing many of them!

Toolybird wrote:

But seriously, IMHO the toolchain is a weak point in Arch. So many talented dev's.. so little interest in a critical part of the system. Previous maintainers have done a great job in keeping it working, but IMHO there really should be a team dedicated to toolchain packaging and maint'. It's a bit much to dump it all on to 1 person.
In my experience the toolchain is not as daunting as it seems. Just needs some dedication and a good amount of testing. As evidenced by bug reports from yours truly, there are some Arch users with domain knowledge. It would be great if there was some kind of toolchain Working Group so that interested folks could pitch in to try and keep things moving along. Would really like to see the x86-64-v3 thing kick-started.
My 2 cents as a random Arch fan.

I'm hoping that the move of the repos to gitlab (at some future point...), will allow users to directly submit patches towards PKGBUILDs and will partially address this. But there also is a need to bring more people onto the team, and this is an area that could be targeted.

Allan · 2021-12-05 06:18:47

https://github.com/allanmcrae/toolchain/

Grab up-to-date packages from here. Read the whole README to know what you are getting into...

ngoonee · 2021-12-05 07:43:51

Xyne wrote:

I'm just chiming in to say thank you to everyone who actually deals with this so that the rest of us don't have to.
Also, someone should graph the burnout rate for gcc+glibc packagers. With before and after photos as a warning to others

I am just going to jump in here to say I'm disappointed this suggestion was not taken up

Allan · 2021-12-06 05:44:33

ngoonee wrote:

Xyne wrote:
I'm just chiming in to say thank you to everyone who actually deals with this so that the rest of us don't have to.
Also, someone should graph the burnout rate for gcc+glibc packagers. With before and after photos as a warning to others
I am just going to jump in here to say I'm disappointed this suggestion was not taken up

I will point out issues with causality in these analysis! I had many similarly stressful life events during my time as toolchain maintainer!

gardotd426 · 2021-12-06 15:59:45

I think maybe part of the reason for the confusion on some users' part is that Ubuntu is already on 2.34 and whatnot, which is pretty uncommon[Edit: By uncommon I mean it's uncommon for Ubuntu to be ahead of Arch on any packages, especially core ones]. Add that with the fact that many end users likely have no idea what goes into packaging core packages and how much testing is required (and what a relatively small team is behind it), and it's a recipe for stuff like this. Plus Arch's popularity has exploded in the past couple years, and especially the past year. So there are a lot of people just now coming to Arch who think Arch = bleeding edge = packages are pushed to the repos as soon as they're released, when that's not really the case.

Last edited by gardotd426 (2021-12-06 16:00:33)

Allan · 2021-12-07 00:45:16

gardotd426 wrote:

So there are a lot of people just now coming to Arch who think Arch = bleeding edge = packages are pushed to the repos as soon as they're released, when that's not really the case.

It used to be the case...

Xyne · 2021-12-07 01:45:28

Allan wrote:

gardotd426 wrote:
So there are a lot of people just now coming to Arch who think Arch = bleeding edge = packages are pushed to the repos as soon as they're released, when that's not really the case.
It used to be the case...

"Allan broke it." Those words may not mean much to the newest generation of Arch users but back in the day that was likely the only explanation you would get for major system breakage.

Not that I exactly miss having my system broken by cavalier packagers, but there's a tinge of nostalgia in those words.

ewaller · 2021-12-07 02:42:34

A pity they let the old punishments die. There was a time detentionbreaking gcc would find you hanging by your thumbs in the dungeons. God, I miss the screaming.

Allan · 2021-12-07 04:55:44

I avoided punishments by blaming the other packages that were failing to compile rather than gcc.

Xyne · 2021-12-07 05:23:37

Well just look at Mr. Shortthumbs over here.

Allan · 2021-12-07 06:44:41

It caused real issues in my failed video game playing career.

Arch Linux

#1 2021-10-24 05:40:50

What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#2 2021-10-24 05:42:54

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#3 2021-10-24 05:55:37

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#4 2021-10-24 06:47:26

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#5 2021-10-24 07:42:08

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#6 2021-10-24 08:48:32

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#7 2021-10-30 21:14:38

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#8 2021-10-30 21:45:35

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#9 2021-10-30 21:49:06

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#10 2021-10-31 12:07:10

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#11 2021-11-16 17:56:07

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#12 2021-11-16 23:57:56

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#13 2021-11-20 02:56:24

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#14 2021-11-24 01:40:41

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#15 2021-11-24 03:43:48

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#16 2021-12-05 06:18:47

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#17 2021-12-05 07:43:51

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#18 2021-12-06 05:44:33

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#19 2021-12-06 15:59:45

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#20 2021-12-07 00:45:16

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#21 2021-12-07 01:45:28

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#22 2021-12-07 02:42:34

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#23 2021-12-07 04:55:44

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#24 2021-12-07 05:23:37

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

#25 2021-12-07 06:44:41

Re: What is happening with glibc and gcc packages?

Board footer