| |||||||||||||
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatibleThat's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatiblePosted May 23, 2009 9:07 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible by liljencrantz Parent article: EGLIBC: Not a fork, but a glibc distribution
Er, the comment you replied to was a tongue-in-cheek joke, pointing at
aspects of Ulrich's maintainership that I really don't have any sort of problem with (hell, I don't care much about strfry() either: if only glibc's objects were sorted so strfry() wasn't pulled into memory on the majority of systems... and now with the paging-prefers-executables stuff it won't even get pushed out again.)
Did you really not see that?
(Log in to post comments)
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible Posted May 23, 2009 10:04 UTC (Sat) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
I am sorry, I did not. My bad. On the other hand, I do not think the same argument was ironic when used to motivate Debians use of eglibc.
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible Posted May 23, 2009 11:37 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The point isn't strfry() et al. It's that Ulrich's behaviour towards
someone trying to fix a bug in that exemplifies his behaviour towards *anyone* trying to contribute *anything*, except if he's known them a long time (and sometimes not even then).
I could dig up dozens of examples but it's too depressing and it's a bank
|
|||||||||||||