On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 17:58 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote: > 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. True, if that is a compile time error, but this is runtime, and is something that may happen just maybe in a very little exercised code path like an exotic error handling routine. > 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? Fair 'nuf. Simo. -- 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
