On Fri, 08 May 2009 03:58:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > eglibc FAQ claims that it wants to be binary and source compatible and > will rebase regularly with Glibc and that doesn't seem much of a fork. It doesn't matter what the PR is. But even if anyone believes this kool-aid and starts acting as if it's true (e.g. synching with Uli's glibc), they are going to end with Claws and Sylpheed eventually, unless they die off first. The "embedded" fig leaf similarly means nothing. It's just that Uli's behaviour hurt ARM the most, therefore they focused on it. It's going to change as soon as Debian bug reports start flowing in. As far as Fedora goes, IMHO we should watch the developments and evaluate the performance of eglibc against a simple criterium: if they add bugs or fix bugs. Next big performance anomaly in something like MySQL will prove eglibc people's worth. If they just wait for Jakub and Uli to fix it for them, I don't see us switching. -- Pete -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
