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

Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 18:54 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> 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.

"..there's limited manpower in the world..." can not be an acceptable
argument for future development. First, we need to make sure that our
goals and ideas meats our idealistic view on how Debian should evolve.
Second we need to make a decision whether this or other way would be the
right one.

> > 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.

I do not insist, instead I propose to consider. See the diff?


Reply to: