On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:45:29AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 18:09 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > > Don't be stupid, only a few people really need NPTL stuff, and you can > > always > > follow testing/unstable once sarge is released. > > This is a bogus argument actually :) It translates basically that "only > a few people need more performant, more conformant and less buggy code"
No it is not, we all need sarge out of the way, and then we can implement lot of fun stuff that have been waiting. like NPTL, real biarch/ppc64 support and so on. And my real claim is that only a few people know what NPTL is anyway, so they are probably not going to miss it. > > > BTW, gcc-3.4 is working quite well for me. Not that > > > it should be needed though; I'd have expected glibc > > > to be getting at thread-local data via functions. > > > > Probably. There is gcc-4.0 also which i don't know the release schedule > > about. > > 3.4 branch is very stable and well behaved on ppc, it's definitely what > I would recommend for now, _even_ for sarge in fact. Too late. Face it, if we are going to rebuild with a NPTL glibc and gcc 3.4, we may not release sarge this year, at least not earlier than sarge+1 aka etch would be released, so what do we gain with this ? > 4.0 is still not ready to be used by anything but gcc hackers imho :) now. but i bet you will say differently shortly before the sarge release. Like said, it is more important to get sarge out by now, there are enough improvements over woody to make it worth it, and we are aiming for faster release cycles in the future, or people will just run testing/unstable as we all do now anyway. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
