| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 04:18, Kumba wrote: |
| 2 |
> I was made aware in #pax of a shift in glibc's versioning mechanism. |
| 3 |
> Most by now have noticed there hasn't been a glibc-2.3.3 package |
| 4 |
> released by GNU. I don't think there will be one. Skimming some |
| 5 |
> threads on the libc-hacker mailing list, the general attitude seems to |
| 6 |
> be letting the individual distributions take snapshots and decide what |
| 7 |
> is stable and what isn't. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I've got 3 changes to make to the existing 2.3.2-r10.ebuild |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Tomorrow perhaps you and spanky and myself can coordinate our next glibc |
| 12 |
snapshot under the newly formed toolchain@gentoo. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I haven't fully read the threads below, but here they are if someone |
| 15 |
> wants to digest them and figure out how we'll handle the versioning changes. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Nov 2003: |
| 19 |
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2003-11/msg00150.html |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Dec 2003: |
| 22 |
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2003-12/msg00033.html |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Jan 2004: |
| 25 |
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2004-01/msg00067.html |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If the version has changed then we should probably move away from |
| 29 |
calling them pre releases. perhaps something like 2.3.X.0.YYMMDD ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> --Kumba |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives