| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/22/14 16:37, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Am Montag, 22. Dezember 2014, 18:24:32 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>>> Well the side effect of this is that arcane and unmaintainable bandworms |
| 7 |
>>>> like toolchain.eclass are generated, with dozens of case distinctions |
| 8 |
>>>> for packages that *nearly* noone needs. Yes it's fine to keep old things |
| 9 |
>>>> for a few people, does it merit slowing everyone else down though? |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> Do we really need glibc 2.9_p20081201-r3, 2.10.1-r1, 2.11.3, 2.12.1-r3, |
| 12 |
>>>> 2.12.2, 2.13-r2, 2.14, 2.14.1-r2, 2.14.1-r3, 2.15-r1, 2.15-r2, 2.15-r3, |
| 13 |
>>>> 2.16.0, 2.17, 2.18-r1, 2.19, 2.19-r1, and 2.20? |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> I can't fully speak to this as I'm not familiar. But are you? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> No, I'm not. Which is why I am asking. I'm happy to learn. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Shall I google that for you? j/k Here are the change logs -> |
| 21 |
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ There are always some big ticket items |
| 22 |
> like I remember when -lrt stuff was moved into glibc or further back when |
| 23 |
> resolver stuff was moved out. Each of these changes usually means breakage |
| 24 |
> usually in terms of what breakout libraries you need and what linker flags |
| 25 |
> you need. But I can't pretend to have watched it closely like I'm sure Mike |
| 26 |
> does. I've watched musl and uclibc and just hit up against the glibc |
| 27 |
> changes as they mysteriously rain down from Drepper. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Sorry, what would he be Googling? He asked why we needed all of the |
| 30 |
various old versions, not why new versions keep coming out. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Also, Drepper hasn't been involved with glibc development in two and a |
| 33 |
half years. |
Archives