On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:39:07AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > On Sat, 17 May 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > > >... glibc without patches can't work. > > > > Isn't this the best support for Joey's proposal? > > A software which does not work without patches is IMHO buggy. > > Do you have a proposal for a remplacement of the glibc then? > > And note we *do* forward patches we apply to the Debian Glibc, which is > not always something pleasant to do, especially when it concerns > "embedded crap" [1]: at best your patch is ignored, at worst you get > insults. > > That's why I personally don't want another level of administrative task > like proposed by Joey Hess, which won't improve things in that case. We > already have hundreds of bugs to fix in the Debian Glibc package, I > don't want to waste my time. > > > > Despite the technical fact in this specific case it also forces divergences > > between distributions - which is even worse. > > > > Maybe it is worst, but it is actually a wish from upstream. Upstream > Glibc maintainers also manage the RedHat/Fedora branch in the same CVS, > and sometimes doesn't even bother to backport patches from this branch > to the trunk.
Isn't Ulrich Drepper RH/Fedora glibc maintainer ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
