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

Re: "Debian is switching to EGLIBC"

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:52:47AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> >>>>> Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> writes:
> > Should we also ask permission to everybody before uploading a new
> > version of the libc?
> Of course, not :-). But this one sounds like a big change on the face of it
> and raises concerns (lsb, compatibility with other distros etc). Obviously
> the fact that the upload has happened means that the Debian libc team does
> not consider that a risk. Even so, I belive a announcement about the planned
> change to d-d and d-d-a would've been a good idea (as opposed to learning
> about it on slashdot).

All the buzz in the media is due to the personality of Mr. Drepper more than 
the techical part. A lot of people has been annoyed thru the years by Drepper
and they are just happy of this little move. 

Take Aurélien' personal post, remove all the personal comments that he could
write in his blog but not to d-d-a, and you will see it is not worth a mail to 
d-d-a: "hey, instead of package direclty Drepper's glibc, our glibc will be
based on eglibc that is exaclty the same but with a changeset of patches that
are being tested by more people and reduce the burden of the maintanership."

> > Frankly there is far less difference between GLIBC 2.9 and EGLIBC 2.9
> > than between GLIBC 2.9 and GLIBC 2.10.
> I guess the concern is not what's the difference today but rather what's the
> roadmap down the line. Given the EGLIBC position statement "EGLIBC strives
> to be source and binary compatible with GLIBC" this may not be a
> concern. Again, a posting to the mailing lists would've cleared the air. 

Yes, a email to d-devel for people who does not read personal blog is always a
nice idea and it has been sent it already [1]. But I do not think it was 
necessary to discuss this in advance in -devel. Imagine ever developer has to 
open a thread in -devel every time they decide|need to apply a patch to their 
package. Oops, I think we have discussed this already :D

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/05/msg00175.html


Reply to: