Re: libc5 policy decision
On 2 Nov 1996, Steve Dunham wrote:
> Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Nov 1996 22:32:00 PST Bruce Perens (bruce@pixar.com) wrote:
>
> > > From: Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu>
> > > > Since the number of packages that don't work with the old allocator is
> > > > very small, 2 confirmed so far, this doesn't really make sense. What
> > > > would make sense is to build 5.4.7 with malloc-dl, and make the old
> > > > malloc available as a separate library.
> > > > In other words, the default behavior should be the new malloc,
> > > > malloc-dl.
> > > >
> > > > Would you reconsider?
>
> > > I will reconsider and go along with your proposal,
> > > but I reserve the right to revisit this question ten days before release.
>
> > Now, the question is, should we rebuild all packages so that they
> > link with 5.4.7, or will 5.2.18 be ok ?
> > And what is the list of packages which break under 5.4.7 ?
>
> netscape and octave
>
> Who's going to make the .so file with the old malloc() in it? Also,
> should we put those C++ new function in it.
>
As the octave maintainer, I should point out several complications here.
First: I am pretty sure that, once octave is compiled against 5.4.7 it's
particular problems will be resolved.
Second: Currently libc5-dev_5.4.7 fails to provide libieee.a and octave
will not build without it.
>From my point of view, a complete 5.4.7, that I can build against is more
productive than providing an old spec in the "new" library so that it
works the old way. Finding and correcting every call to malloc is
preferable to keeping the old way in a supposedly new library.
Anyone know where libieee went?
Thanks,
Dwarf
------------ --------------
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257
Flexible Software Fax: NONE
Black Creek Critters e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net
------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: