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?
Of cource, there isn't such a list now (as far as I know, at least I
guess that list would be empty now).
> 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.
So, why does that mean we cannot compete?
What has self-contained to do with Motif?
Anyway, Lars just posted a script to auto-build the whole distribution,
and I really think with such scripts (presumably improved ones, but
the one from Lars apparently already works) we will get a self-contained
distribution rather soon.
> They could recomplie them and have "fully libc6" distribution in a day.
Wait and see what Lars will do.
joost witteveen, email@example.com
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .