On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:35:21AM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > > The fact is that Hoary *was* binary compatible (in both directions) with > > both sarge and sid when it was released. Later, the Debian glibc > > maintainers and release managers considered changing the ABI in order to fix > > a bug. In the course of a lengthy discussion[0], including expression of > > concerns about inter-distribution compatibility, they weighed the options > > and decided to go ahead with it. I fully support their decision, and I do > > not consider the resulting incompatibility to be a significant obstacle to > > the continuing growth and success of either Debian or Ubuntu. Presumably, > > neither did they. > I wasn't even aware of the sarge/hoary incompatibility till it came up > in this thread. And, based on what you and others have said, I'd agree > it wasn't your fault, though it was certainly unfortunate. > I'm more worried about the future; and I still haven't seen anyone > address my initial question, which is why Ubuntu is tracking sid on core > things like libc in the first place. The value you add is around > the edges with stuff like X.org and GNOME 2.10. I'd like to see you do > that in a manner that promotes compatibility with sarge, just as we're > doing at Progeny as we move forward in these same areas. But I certainly > understand why you want to move forward in these areas.. I do as well. Is Progeny interested in working with other Debian (+Ubuntu) folks to solve the fundamental limitations of the shlibs system that cause sarge and hoary to be incompatible due to a single-symbol difference, and that will cause similar breakage in the other direction with sarge and breezy? > If there's ever been or ever will be a perfect time for Debian and > Ubuntu to sync up, it's now. Sarge is out, and there is significant > momentum within the project behind the idea of fixing the release cycle > problem, so it seems likely that etch will be out in some predictable > and reasonable amount of time. Why not take advantage of that? Better > yet, why not help make it happen? Why not, for example, work with > Debian on putting together a plan for migrating to GCC 4 rather than > just plowing ahead on your own? Going it alone is sure to cause > compatibility problems that make the current ones pale by comparison. ... going it alone, like when Matthias Klose ran his plans for the gcc 4 transition past the Debian release team before implementing it in Ubuntu, and is now proceeding to implement the same transition in Debian? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature