On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote: > > Does somebody know what I'm talking about? > > Yes. > > In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution > for] is the state of glibc: > > [1] Upstream sources generally are not buildable on older versions of the > tool chain. This has security implications, and is a general pain, but > > [2] Because of portability issues, it can be very hard to figure out > what the proper solution is to any specific problem, and > > [3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of > knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't > designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might > involve changing a few others just to allow the build to work at all.]
That's why we have the glibc-hackers/wizards around. I consider this to be a feature, not a bug. Glibc and the rest of the toolchain *is* considered to be a difficult case, especially by upstream [1,2]. Anyway, this is highly off-topic for -vote, but I had a few beers and am frustrated with the outcome of the match tonight :p Michael [1] http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2004-03/msg00076.html [2] http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2004-03/msg00114.html -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
