On 2 Oct 2002, Russ Dill wrote: >> But I see rough times ahead for the binary snapshots. I surely can't make >> one for each system out there. And if the others distros don't also >> upgrade to glic-2.3 then I think the best is to completely stop the >> snapshots builds and replace them with a nice set of scripts which >> people can use to make their own customized snapshot. > >upgrade to glibc-2.3? technically, such a thing doesn't exist yet, so to
Actually, technically glibc 2.3 does exist. You can download it while you read the rest of this email message if you like. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-10/msg00048.html >ask every distro to upgrade to it... Nobody is asking every distribution to upgrade to it, at least I don't see anyone doing so. Each distribution will use glibc 2.3 when they're ready to do so. For most distributions I presume that means their next official release. >redhat is making cvs snapshots of glibc, and distributing those >instead of patching important bugs in the release version, and >using that. CVS versions of software often contain new bugs and >even security vulnerabilities, it is far more prudent to work >with a release version of such a major system component. Because >of this, most distros will probably wait until it becomes a >release until they include it. This is 100% complete and total fabrication with not even a shred of truth to it. Red Hat has poured significant resources into the development of glibc 2.3, and employs 3 people working full time on glibc, and various others contributing to it. The glibc 2.3 work for x86 was completed a while ago, and only bugfixes and whatnot have occured since then, along with fixes for other architectures, etc. glibc 2.2.93 is glibc 2.3 for all intents and purposes on x86, and is not considered a random CVS snapshot. But don't take my word for it by all means, when you can get it right from the horses mouth below... The official GNU glibc maintainer Ulrich Drepper fully supports, and promotes the glibc version in Red Hat Linux 8.0. It wouldn't have been included in the distribution otherwise. Here is his official opinion (with his GNU glibc maintainer hat on) on this matter: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-10/msg00050.html There's absolutely no valid technical reason that glibc in Red Hat Linux 8.0 should not have been included. It is superior to glibc 2.2 in numerous ways, including standards compliance, performance, and also various new features. Every mainstream distribution will be using glibc 2.3 likely within the next 6 months, and there's no reason not to. In addition, the other distributions will benefit greatly from all of the legwork that has been done by Red Hat, and that includes beta testing, bug fixing, stabilization, etc. In all honesty, without someone stepping forward to include a new glibc test release in their beta releases, and then include the stabilized result in their final OS, glibc would never get well tested at all, because people simply are not willing to risk updating glibc on their systems to every development version that comes out. Thanks to everyone working on glibc, and everyone who tested and followed the Red Hat beta release process during Red Hat development, glibc 2.3 has been beaten on, and a great many bugs were fixed in it which allowed it to stabilize to the state it is in right now, and be ready for mainstream usage. >I really do see your frustration, as now anyone who develops software on >redhat (at least those that keep up with redhat) cannot release binaries >and expect them to work on anyone elses system. You don't need to worry >about compiling for every system out there, just what is current >release. Sure you can. If you need to build binaries which are compatible with older glibc, simply compile them using older compat glibc. It's quite simple actually. Again, don't spread FUD. Please read the above message from Uli, and think where glibc 2.3 would be right now had Red Hat not poured all of the funding and resources into it's development. It would be nowhere near where it is now. It's also open source, and therefore useable by anyone, and any distribution. >As far as actually getting this done, redhat has provided cross compiler >rpms in the past, so you may be able to get these, and cross compile for >glibc2.2. I don't see a rough time for binary snapshots, just a rough >time for developers using cvs snapshots of glibc A cross compiler is something used to produce binaries for an architecture other than the architecture the compiler is running on. Not sure what that has to do with glibc. I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings, and misconceptions that people have about glibc 2.2.9x and glibc 2.3 which is now officially released. If not, please feel free to discuss the issue on the glibc mailing lists, where I'm sure all of the glibc developers would be glad to discuss any concerns people may have. Thanks, TTYL -- Mike A. Harris ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
