Debian switching to EGLIBC [LWN.net]

Debian switching to EGLIBC

Posted May 6, 2009 14:35 UTC (Wed) by alex (subscriber, #1355)
Parent article: Debian switching to EGLIBC

I had no idea things where so bad in mainline for Debian to consider switching libc implementations. Some of the bugs linked in the article do seem to have very curt replies (although this could be a biased selection).

Still fork's live or die on their user base and people using it. I do have to wonder why for the love of ${DEITY} the new fork is hosted in CVS. It is the 21st century you know!

(Log in to post comments)

Debian switching to EGLIBC

Posted May 6, 2009 14:38 UTC (Wed) by mbanck (subscriber, #9035) [Link]

I do have to wonder why for the love of ${DEITY} the new fork is hosted in CVS. It is the 21st century you know!

No idea where you got that idea from but this page says it is a subversion repository.

Likely they will follow suit and switch to git as well after the glibc git switch has been finished.

Michael

SVN/CVS

Posted May 6, 2009 15:31 UTC (Wed) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]

Ahh, I was thrown by the viewcvs.cgi in the repository browser URL.

Hopefully when glibc goes git it will make maintenance a lot easier. Decent DVCS semantics make maintaining patch sets against a baseline so much easier.

Debian switching to EGLIBC

Posted May 6, 2009 16:02 UTC (Wed) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]

I do have to wonder why for the love of ${DEITY} the new fork is hosted in CVS. It is the 21st century you know!
No idea where you got that idea from but this page says it is a subversion repository.

Ew, that's even worse. CVS may be a throwback to the previous century, but SVN never had any justification for existing at all. It was never enough of an improvement over CVS to be worth the difference, and it's verging on insane to use it for new projects these days instead of git.

Debian switching to EGLIBC

Posted May 6, 2009 16:31 UTC (Wed) by mbanck (subscriber, #9035) [Link]

EGLIBC is two years old. It is just Debian which recently decided to switch. Again, glibc is currently (as in, yesterday, today) switching to git and it doesn't make sense to discuss EGLIBC's SCM right now before they have or have not decided to follow the switch (I guess they will follow sooner or laster, but who knows).

Michael

Debian switching to EGLIBC

Posted May 6, 2009 16:45 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

One argument for svn over cvs is that git-svn exists, but there is no equally straightforward way to do git-cvs...

Debian switching to EGLIBC

Posted May 6, 2009 19:50 UTC (Wed) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

[SVN] was never enough of an improvement over CVS to be worth the difference,

Having used both extensively, I must strongly disagree. SVN is a huge improvement over CVS. The main potential issue with SVN is that it uses the central repository model. For many projects there's no problem with that; it really depends on how the project is organized. I have no idea whether it makes sense for eglibc.

Debian switching to EGLIBC

Posted May 6, 2009 14:41 UTC (Wed) by mbanck (subscriber, #9035) [Link]

I had no idea things where so bad in mainline for Debian to consider switching libc implementations.

Eglibc is not a different implementation - it is basically a branch of glibc which is regularly synced and which you can fine-configure how you like. Plus its maintainers say they will be more friendly towards users etc.

Michael