Re: libc6 policy in unstable
> > I'm not entirely certain I see why we need to remove libc5 packages from
> > the system for Debian 2.0. While I agree that the primary packages should
> > really be glibc, I don't see how a few lib5 packages are going to hurt the
> > distribution
> Well, they won't hurt much, but they would:
> - make memory usage less favourable (if you're running a mix of
> libc5/libc6 binaries, you'll have both in memory).
> - make Debian look less attractive (We wouldn't appear in the
> list of distributions that are fully libc6).
Could you please point me to such a list?
Anyways, Debian just can't compete with commercial distributions which can
allow to suppose that they are self-contained. Debian is NOT. Unlike
RedHat (which has, for instance its "own" Motif and Metro-X), we can't
include ANY commercial product into the distribution.
They could recomplie them and have "fully libc6" distribution in a day.
There is a big world outside Debian, and the only way to compete is to
provide as much flexibility as possible. Yes, Debian must migrate to
libc6 ASAP, but it shouldn't just cut off the "conservative" part of the
users (they won't be back) and provide FULL choice for both environments.
| _ 7 '''
\ (") (O O)
/ \ \ +---------------oOO--(_)--------------------+
| \ __/ <-- | Alexander Yukhimets email@example.com |
| | | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
( / +-------------------------oOO---------------+
\ / |__|__|
) /(_ || ||
| (___) ooO Ooo
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .