Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:23:01PM -0700, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:19:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > > I have them working in the case I care about - no backwards
> > > compatibility at all. We (Monta Vista) can get away with this :)
> > > I've attached the patches.
> >
> > This looks like what I have come up with as well. I don't care about
> > backward compatibility either. If someone else wants to support
> > broken crap that's their problem; in an age where we have scripts and
> > makefiles to rebuild entire systems from source I can't see the point
> > of binary compatibility.
>
> Don't you wish? My other hat is Debian, which can't just ditch
> existing MIPS installations like that.
And that's the problem I have with glibc. What should I put in? We
can require newer binutils to build glibc - no problem. But losing
backward compatibility is a big deal.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj
