On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:58:21AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> What I find unsettling it the number of packages reshipped already;
> the fact so many problem packages have been found already suggests
> to me there are lots more to be found. Not just obscure packages
> that hardly anyone uses either; glibc is amongst them.
Note that none of these packages have been re-released because of
compiler problems. The glibc fixes are mainly to repair broken
backwards compatibility, not necessarily bugs in new functionality.
> > ps. yes I know about the binary compatibility and the new ABI differencies,
> > but than we can say rh have to include libc-5 and not glibc or glibc2.0,
>
>
> libc5 should indeed be included, but not as the base libc, but for
> applications users already have and which work well. Not everyone
> wants to go through the process of recompiling and retesting their
> applications just to move from RHL 5.x to 7.x. IN some cases, it's
> not an option; even Linux users use code that comes in binary-only.
I'll look into at least putting them on the FTP site in a conspicuous
directory for users to download.
Cheers,
Matt
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
