On 7/14/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 07/14/07 12:52 CST: > > > It's their stable branch which contains many backported bug fixes and > > they're not producing any more releases. Is it better to use a known > > buggy glibc-2.5? If glibc-2.5.1 was imminent, I'd say wait, but recent > > history would suggest it's not likely. > > I'm just mentioning it, doesn't really matter to me. However I'm > curious about something else. These branch update patches are huge, > these are all "bug" fixes? There's no enhancements in these patches? > I'm asking because I don't know the answer, but it would be nice to > know.
As far as I know, yes. But I'd be implying a lot more knowledge of glibc internals than I have if I tried to claim that. You can see all the changes here: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/ChangeLog?cvsroot=glibc&only_with_tag=glibc-2_5-branch This is also what would become glibc-2.5.1 if it's released. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-July/059606.html http://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2007-07/msg00045.html -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
