| |||||||||||||
As goes Debian...As goes Debian...Posted May 6, 2009 23:29 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)Parent article: Debian switching to EGLIBC
As goes Debian, so will likely go *buntus. And Mint, too. And something about the concept of switching to another libc just seems to have Fedora's name written all over it, too.
Unlike with the XFree86 situation, the *BSDs won't continue to use glibc for years afterward, because they've never used glibc in the first place. Ulrich and his project could become irrelevant remarkably quickly if Debian really goes through with this.
Hopefully also unlike the Xfree86 situation, we won't spend years waiting for some big architectural overhaul to be completed before the real progress can begin.
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora switching seems unlikely Posted May 6, 2009 23:48 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] And something about the concept of switching to another libc just seems to have Fedora's name written all over it, too. Except for the fact that Drepper is employed by Red Hat, which plays a major role in Fedora governance. If Red Hat wanted to switch glibc maintainers, they would presumably have fired him long ago.
Fedora switching seems unlikely Posted May 7, 2009 0:06 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
The highlighted bug reports remind me a lot of the Jeff Johnson/RPM affair, come to think of it.
Fedora switching seems unlikely Posted May 7, 2009 0:22 UTC (Thu) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
I was thinking the same thing, and I'm getting the impression that Red Hat must be an incredible place to work. I imagine the lunchroom seethes with nerd testosterone. Maybe it all comes from being bottled up in North Carolina.
Fedora switching seems unlikely Posted May 7, 2009 0:36 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
Again, the "I don't see your name on my paycheck" comment comes to mind. I think Jeff was OK as long as he was only insulting CentOS users. But Red Hat doesn't like employees insulting actual RHEL customers. ;-)
As goes Debian... Posted May 7, 2009 6:07 UTC (Thu) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
> Ulrich and his project could become irrelevant remarkably quickly if Debian really goes through with this.
I can't argue with what could happen, but that doesn't seem likely. eglibc will continue to sync from glibc; thus, glibc will continue to have relevance. Ulrich has considerable experience and (I gather) skill in working on glibc; eglibc adoption simply reduces his interactions with users, which is probably good for both Ulrich as much as anyone. So I think Ulrich will continue to head glibc development (and hence be relevant to eglibc and everyone using it) for quite some time to come.
As goes Debian... Posted May 7, 2009 6:39 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
There seems unlikely to be a wait for architectural overhaul.
Architecturally glibc is very nice indeed (downside: the makefiles are astonishingly powerful... and astonishingly complex, and utterly undocumented: I suspect that no other makefile on the face of the Earth uses as many GNU Make features as glibc's).
My biggest hope here is that better docs can be written. Ulrich has a
|
|||||||||||||