On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 01:19:19PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > Currently libc5 is only still supported under i386 and m68k (AFAICT). It > hasn't been our primary libc since bo, which will be 3 releases out of > date when potato releases. Isn't it time to get rid of this? Are there any > compelling reasons to continue to have it around? I think most > commercial, closed-source applications for Linux now use glibc anyway, so > I don't see any reason at all to keep it around, except to compile all > those old ip exploits from rootshell.com. > > I think we should move libc5 out of woody very soon. A lot of very old > cruft and hacks (ldso) are still around because of this. If we can get rid > of libc5, ldso will become obsoleted by libc6 2.2.x (since it contains a > very good ldconfig and ldd, and ld-linux.so.1 wont be needed anymore). It > also means that nss1 compat modules will not beed needed, this again > reducing the amount of cruft/hacks in the default build. > > Anyone else agree, or can give a real reason why this shouldn't be the > case? Hi Ben, Though I can see why libc5 seems unnecessary and outdated, if removed, some users will be surprised to find nonworking binaries. A quick ldd through my /usr/local/bin shows several programs depending on libc5 which I couldn't otherwise recompile. l3enc, l3dec, mp3enc would suddenly stop working. I personally have this one program which I wrote and lost the source to. All I have is the libc5 binary. I wouldn't look forward to rewriting it as it works. In short, if keeping libc5 around is introducing problems or causing a lot of extra work for other developers, I guess removal would be viable. However, if it's self-contained and someone is willing to maintain it, what harm is there in leaving it in. Just my $0.02, Shane -- Shane Wegner: shane@cm.nu Personal website: http://www.cm.nu/~shane/
Attachment:
pgpz1bx3_lRcW.pgp
Description: PGP signature