On Sat, 9 May 2009, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
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,
You and I don't agree on much - but I agree with you on the above.
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
