Re: glibc recompiling was Re: libc resolver problem solved (criticalbug)
On Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 11:47:12PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> "Nathan" == Nathan Myers <ncm@cantrip.org> writes:
> > Incidentally, I hope we're going with the 2.1 glibc. The glibc
> > team's political release problems shouldn't prevent us from using
> > the new less-buggy library in place of the current
> > hacked-near-to-death 2.0.x version.
>
> Yikes. I was unaware anyone was considering going with 2.1 glibc on
> x86. I realize that many ports are already using it. Either way,
> swapping libc at this point from 2.0 to 2.1 (or vice versa) on any
> port considered frozen would be folly IMHO. Unless we want to just
> cancel the freeze? I don't think we do. Better to have a 2.2
> quickly, i.e., second quarter, 1999.
Going with 2.1 glibc for slink would be _STUPID_. Going with it for
potato, especially if the release schedule stays anything like it is
projected to be, could be a very good idea. There are relatively few
problems...
Dan
Reply to: