Re: Dropping FC4 as platform

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > 
 > >Since we are close to enabling 64-bit builds, and given FC5 is about to
 > >be come out, let's drop FC4 as a supported platform. 
 > >
 > >If anybody out there is worried about FC4, they are welcome to submit
 > >patches to keep frysk working on it, but we are not going to worry
 > >about it.  As the compiler gets more fixes and better debuginfo
 > >support, it will become harder and harder to backport those to FC4, as
 > >well.
 > >  
 > >
 > Elena, here's a brief breakdown:
 > 
 >                  ptrace-exec  gcj-gc     gcj       Java-GNOME
 > FC-5             broken(1)    broken(3)  ok        ok
 > FC-4             broken|ok(2) ok         broken(4) mega-rpm(5)
 > RHEL4            ok           ok         ok        mega-rpm
 > badger           ?            ?          broken(6) missing(6)
 > 
 > (1) ptrace, when the non-main thread does an exec, is broken; on FC-5 
 > blocker list?

Bug number?

 > (2) see (1); broke it latest kernel; workaround is to avoid the latest 
 > kernel

Ok that's another argument in favor of not worrying about fc4.

 > (3) the garbage collector deadlocks; fix looming

bug #?

 > (4) FC-4 gcj is missing fixes found on RHEL-4; workaround by building 
 > installing RHEL-4 gcj snapshot

Available anywhere?

 > (5) Assuming (4) installed; the RHEL-4 mega-rpm can be built and installed

Available anywhere?

 > (6) Breezy Badger needs both upstream compiler, and upstream Java-GNOME 
 > bindings to build.
 > 

Ok, again a matter of resources. We should keep an eye on how/if frysk 
works on it, but for now it cannot be a priority, since we have only 
limited control on those packages.

 > So as soon as those two remaining FC-5 issues are fixed (I think gcj-gc 
 > is about to go through); I'd agree that we can switch.
 > 

Define switch. We really can't afford to look after FC4 right now.
Let's publish the workarounds on the webpages and leave it at that.