glibc fork ?

Seth Vidal skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Sat May 9 22:50:45 UTC 2009



On Sat, 9 May 2009, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

> On Fri, 08 May 2009 03:58:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> 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




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list