Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library?
> And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with
> missing GLIBC functionality? I'm just trying to understand your point of
> view..
There's a distinction between “missing in the Sun C library” and “technically
impossible to create in the Sun C library” -- especially given that there's
limited manpower in the world, and that there might always be an element of
time involved. You seem to insist that since the Sun C library is possible to
extend, glibc can't possibly be advantageous in any way, and this position is
a bit confusing.
> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
> their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
> communities will only grow over time. It is not like they will
> disappear, that means Debian must adjust to the new fact of life: "we
> have more than one major OS totally open-sourced at its core".
Again, there's a certain difference between “there exist more than one free
kernel and libc” (ignoring the problems the current Sun license might have
with the DFSG) and “Debian must do whatever Nexenta wishes”. This isn't a new
situation -- the BSDs have been around forever. I think you'd meet a lot more
acceptance and friendliness if you stopped insisting that Debian unilaterally
adopted your conclusions and world view.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
Reply to: