Re: The fate of libc5
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > 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 releases out of date when potato releases.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?
> Consider the case where someone has a bunch of systems with some libc5
> binaries compiled locally and installed in /usr/local (which might be
> mounted from somewhere else, say).
> Now imagine they want to add some new systems to this collection, and
> install the latest Debian - whatever that is at the time. If there's
> no libc5 in it, then oops! They can't run their locally compiled
> programs any more.
Is anyone still compiling their own software with libc5? Since hamm, libc6
has been the major libc in Debian. People have had the chance to move to
libc6 since june 1998, that's over two years ago. Potato still supports
libc5, so it's not until woody is released (in a year or so) that the
support for libc5 stops. By then, people will have had three years to move
their software to libc6.
For people running commercial libc5-based software, it's another thing.
But how bad will it be if you have to keep a potato system around for
running that libc5-based software?
rd1936: 1:30am up 28 days, 14 min, 7 users, load average: 1.56, 1.14, 1.08