On 2000-10-02T21:40:59,
tytso@mit.edu said:
> So the other distributions end up having to take the same arbitrary
> snapshot as what RH chose, which from the outside seems like it's done
> completely outside of the package author/maintainer's control. (i.e.,
> Why didn't the package maintainer issue a formal release, if they really
> thought it was the best thing for RedHat to be using --- especially when
> the package maintainer in many cases is employed by Red Hat?)
Horrors, the release of the product might have had to wait until the formal
release was done!
There is also that a) it looks like a split in the Linux "community" if the
others chose to ship the official glibc/gcc (with incompatibilities), or b) it
looks like Red Hat was leading the "pack" again and everyone else had to
follow because of it.
> Certainly the LSB will hopefully solve many of these problems.
> Unfortunately, the LSB isn't ready yet. Getting more people to help
> work on the LSB would be a big help on that score.
This was a huge kick back for the LSB. The LSB's job definetely is to specify
the ABI, but why do we need an LSB if vendors just ship whatever they want?
> (*) I note Ulrich has yet to make a public statement guarateeing that
> there won't be any ABI compatibility problems between RH 7.0 and glibc
> 2.2. I am still hoping there won't be any.... (knock on wood)
Most definetely. I do hope for everyone that glibc 2.2 will be compatible.
Because if there are, we'll either see big ISVs pressing everyone else to
using / providing a compatible glibc (if that can be easily done) or the other
way around. Both of which have their own political issues.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>
Development HA
-- Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST