(I'm cc'ing this to debian-powerpc, since they are having the same problems) Previously Johnie Ingram wrote: > Actually, because of various glitches, the large number of > uncompilable packages after all these months, and the LCS's focus on > standardizing the 2.0.7t interface, I'm starting to doubt the benefits > of using glibc 2.1. LCS should not focus in 2.0.7t I think. We will switch to 2.1 when it arrives, and it would be a shame if that immediately obsoletes the LCS. > Plus our glibc2.1 debs are incompatible with all the redhat/sparc and > ultrapenguin systems already out there, which is making the ultra port > difficult. I'm somewhat concered about 2.1 as well: it seems to break a lot of programs since it changes a bunch of includes and the kernel-interface. The real problem is that we use 2.0.7t on the i386, so that is what most programmers/developers/maintainers see. But for some ports (ppc, ultrasparc) we need 2.1 since 2.0 does not support these architectures. This means that people doing the porting will have a lot more work on their hands.. Ideally we should put an i386 glibc 2.1 in experimental and encourage maintainers to try their packages with that. Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: wakkerma@wi.LeidenUniv.nl WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgp18X1qWhuor.pgp
Description: PGP signature