| |||||||||||||
Debian switching to EGLIBCDebian switching to EGLIBCPosted May 6, 2009 17:30 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493)Parent article: Debian switching to EGLIBC
Probably they didn't like that new XML thing in glibc either.
(Log in to post comments)
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 19:27 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
They will have to if they want to be source and binary compatible as promised.
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 19:54 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
That's just silly.
The XML thing was just used as a patch to deal with a VERY badly designed POSIX API feature.
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 20:04 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes. And the compiled code for it is perhaps 200 bytes. It's literally
just a bunch of printf()s. That, at least, is not worth forking over.
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 20:09 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
Doh... That was a joke! I guess it contained too much truth for some :)
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 20:37 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I've seen people arguing exactly your joke, seriously, in the past. They
tended to be BSD people.
Some also argued apparently seriously that malloc() and dynamic memory
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 6, 2009 20:45 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
Actually, yes, I'm with them on this one. Oh no, I should stop I think.
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 7, 2009 4:05 UTC (Thu) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]
Probably HPC - we're an odd bunch.. ;-)
|
|||||||||||||