On 08/16/2007 05:54 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 11:20 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Oliver Falk wrote: >>>> *Anything* is better than having glibc calling abort()... imho... >>> Wouldn't most programs - I can think of some big commercial DB - then >>> abort as well? >> Letting commercial DB abort is much different than having glibc abort >> They are making the decision on what to do, not glibc. Leaving those >> types of decisions in the handles of the apps is much better than >> having glibc playing God.. imho... > > +1 not that I am a big fan of proprietary software (not at all), but > aborting a DB (or any other software that manages complex structures) > with the risk of corrupting the DB is definitely WRONG. I'm also not a big fan... But if you run proprietary software it's usually supported under specific distributions. And the vendor will hit that bug and will not support that distro until they have fixed the code. Also, as I already mentioned. You don't get EL6 (or whatever), copy your software to the new machine and take it into production... You'll usually test your software first, don't you? -of -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
