[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please don't remove libc5 - old non-free software might need it!

On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 07:36:35PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> If the software is still availble, then there is no argument, and also no
> reason to leave it in. libc5 will not change. No new archs can use it (or
> would even want to, since their existence is post-libc5, so they don't need
> the backward compatibility). Why keep it around, when it is obsolete, and
> way past it's required backward compatible timeframe?
> IOW, how would removing it from woody actually hurt anything? And don't
> argue about why it wouldn't hurt to keep it, because even libc5-alt package
> maintainers want it removed. Keeping in woody the small group of
> "bleeding-edge, legacy application using" folks don't have to worry about
> it not showing up in dselect's obsolete list (which doesn't hurt anything),
> is completely useless to anyone.

Then orphan it, and let someone else take care of it if they want to. Remove 
it if we go into a freeze and it's got a "[REMOVE]" slapped against it. It
obviously still is useful for backwards compatiblity. Keeping it in Woody
lets anyone, who wants to upgrade it to the latest policy or deal with a
important bug, do so. It lets anyone considering changing to Debian who
has to support a legacy libc5 app that there is the minimal support to do

The last package that had this many people object to its removal was
FVWM 1 which was "way past it's[sic] required backward compatible timeframe". 
As you will note, FVWM 1 is still in the archive, because some
people found it useful, and didn't want to support it themself.
> > Also, from the Jargon File "FUD /fuhd/ n. ... has become generalized to
> > refer to any kind of disinformation used as a _competitive_ weapon." 
> > (Emphasis mine) Unless you're claiming that Harald Schmid is the secret
> > tool of a competetor (and even that would be streaching the original
> > definition), it's not correct to call it FUD.
> > 
> > > Even upgrading to post-potato distributions will not cause libc5 to be
> > > uninstalled, or your libc5 applications to be broken.
> > 
> > Are you promsing that? If so, then why not leave it in? If it's
> > going to take too much maintainance to leave it in, then it's probably going 
> > to break without that maintaince. i.e. upgrading to post-potato distributions
> > is probably going to cause you libc5 applications to be broken.
> Again, fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Regardless of the intention, your fear
> is not based on any sound reasoning, and thus, has no value in this
> discussion.

Did you read the definition of FUD given above from the Jargon file? Is this
just the modern form of yelling "Communist"? 

Does libc4 still install and work on Debian systems? I can't find a binary
for it, and can't compile the source. That would at least provide evidence
about whether libc5 programs are going to break post-Potato.

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu
It was starting to rain on the night that they cried forever,
It was blinding with snow on the night that they screamed goodbye.
	- Dio, "Rock and Roll Children"

Reply to: