[LTP] [RFC] Define minimal supported kernel and (g)libc version

[Li Wang]

Hi Petr,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi Li,
>
> > This is a good topic, thanks for kicking off this initiative!
> Thanks for your input.
>
> > > I'm sorry, I've raised this question in the past, but it got lost.
> > > I remember we talked about 2.6 something.
>
> > Yes, the past discussion is still valuable to us. see:
> > http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2019-May/011990.html
> Great, thanks!
>
> > > It'd be good to state publicly the oldest kernel and glibc (or even
> other
> > > libc
> > > versions) we support.  This would allow us to remove some legacy code
> or
> > > force
> > > support for legacy code.
>
>
> > Maybe we could also state the oldest GCC version too? Though I haven't
> seen
> > any conflict or supporting issue from my side, it helps avoid some
> > potential error in cross-compilation I guess.
> +1
> Not sure if we want to specify also clang.
>

I do not use clang often, so I hope others can advise more here.


>
> >     i.e.  kernel-3.10.0 / glibc-2.17 / gcc-4.8.0
> This is for RHEL7 I guess.
>
Correct.


>
> The oldest system in travis we have CentOS 6: kernel-2.6.32 / glibc-2.12 /
> gcc-4.4.7 (clang-3.4.2, but we don't test it with clang). I'm ok to have
> this
> older dependency, just to make sure it builds.  But code would be cleaner
> for
> sure if we drop it.
>
+1
Sounds good to me.

>
> BTW I also occasionally test build on SLES 11-SP3 (kernel 3.0 /
> glibc-2.11.3 /
> gcc-4.3.4 - older glibc and gcc), but this is not even in travis.
> But for testing these distros we use older releases (the same mentioned
> Jan [1]).
>

Agreed, we can explicitly declare that(in some place of Doc) from a
specific LTP(e.g ltp-full-20200120) version, we don't provide code
supporting for the older kernel/glibc/gcc package anymore. If people who
are going to test old distros, they can just pick up an old released LTP
version and hack it by themself. The latest branch of LTP doesn't accept
that patch for old things.

> I wonder if there is really somebody using 2.6.x or 3.x < 3.10 on master.
> If not, we can drop some lapi files which mention 2.6.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2019-May/011991.html
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20200317/568e8c22/attachment.htm>