[CentOS-devel] iptables-devel in centos 4.4

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:45:17PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> Oh, you mean that beta channel where 3.4.6-3 was available, which wasn't
>> the gcc version either upstream built their kernel rpm with (3.4.6-2)?
> 
> What are the changes between the -2 release and the -3 release? Sometimes
> it's as simple as "fixed spelling error in description" or "added tiny
> little patch which is clearly not going to cause trouble" -- but other times
> it's "updated to new snapshot, altering about 100,000 lines of code". Which
> is it in this case?
> 
> If it's nearer the former, Milan's request that the newer compiler be used
> because it fixes a known and serious problem seems quite reasonable.
> 
> Policies are good, but if the changes are small, doesn't it seem like using
> 3.4.6-3 is more in the spirit of the rules than the literal interpretation?
> Clearly the problem is the way Red Hat is building things in a
> non-self-hosted way -- but it's hard to do anything about that.
> 
here is the changelog:

* Tue May 23 2006 Jakub Jelinek  <jakub at redhat.com> 3.4.6-3

- -fvar-tracking fixes needed for SystemTap (BZ#2438)
- add workaround for buggy programs that link in their own unwinder
  and reexport it (#192814)
- make all globals in libgcc_eh.a hidden, so that newly (incorrectly)
  linked programs can't reexport the unwinder
- support -fno-frame-base-loclist option to prevent use of
  DWARF2 location lists in DW_AT_frame_base value (#191041)


Matt, the point is - those changes might have implications down the road
- I dont have the gcc knowledge to work out exactly what those issues
might be - and some of them do seem to have a direct impact on kernel
space stuff ?

you say that Policy is good, i agree - and its this form of policy that
a userbase can take for granted - that helps sustain CentOS!

One point that we seem to be missing is that when RHAT are building
something in a way that cant be reproduced, its them who are breaking
with the spirit of things - and we really should push them to not do that.

Also, would someone like to donate some RHN subscriptions to the CentOS
project so that we might be able to keep a closer eye on whats going on
with RHat side of things from the inside ? Would RHat be ok with that
knowledge coming our way ? Does that open us upto any legal issues ?

-- 
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq