Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD
- To: Robert Millan <email@example.com>
- Cc: "Perry E.Metzger" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD
- From: Nathan Hawkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:35:10 -0500
- Message-id: <20031201183510.GD4716@quic.net>
- In-reply-to: <20031201123442.GC1237@aragorn>
- References: <20031119202813.GA6625@khazad.dyndns.org> <20031129144515.GA11147@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20031129184012.GC19507@quic.net> <20031130021949.GA7065@lightbearer.com> <email@example.com> <20031201011014.GB4716@quic.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20031201123442.GC1237@aragorn>
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> > IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
> > scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
> > problems in the library forever.
> First we'll merge the patchset in upstream. Then we'll have problems for a
> while, similarly to those the GNU/Hurd port has fixing Glibc every time it
> breaks for them.
I'd be more impressed with that analysis if the bugs were in fact
getting fixed. So far, DNS is _still_ broken, after more than a year.
> But unlike GNU/Hurd, at some point upstream developers will install GNU/K*BSD
> themselves and maintain it for us.
How do you know that? Why should they do this when they didn't for the