AW: Glibc Patch

Voluspa lista3 at comhem.se
Tue Jan 27 11:27:42 PST 2004


On Mon Jan 26 06:08:50 MST 2004 Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 00:48, Michael Labuschke wrote:
>> So much about "glibc cvs is stable. We will not release a 'stable'
tarball."
>> attitude.

>I think Glibc can be considered stable, with a stable kernel. The 2.6

As of two weeks ago, perhaps. I found the following single message on
libc-hacker rather interesting (couldn't see a thread). A tremendous
amount of bugfixing has taken place between the suggested 2.3.3
"release" date and what is mentioned here:

--quote--

From: Roland McGrath
To: Andreas Jaeger
Cc: Glibc hackers
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:31:06 -0800
Subject: Re: versioning

We have not really had "release freezes" (at least lately).  But there
are "quiet" periods where ABIs are not being perturbed and everyone is
focussed on stabilizing changes.  For example, since version.h was
bumped to 2.3.3, there were no ABI additions and there were lots of
necessary bug fixes in recent weeks.  Only in the last few days have
2.3.4 symbols been added.  Up until then, the trunk could have been
said to have been in release freeze for 2.3.3 (if we had such a formal
process, which we don't).  If we did make release branches, we might
not want to have made one before 2004-1-13 or so.  That is, the way
branches are done should follow what development is doing at any given
time, not try to be rigid.  OTOH, if we had a formal process of
freezing ABI changes to version sets, we'd better have done that
earlier, since OS distributions shipped with GLIBC_2.3.3 version sets
before then.  To me that emphasizes the need to better formalize what
is going on now, without trying to slow it down.

--unquote--

Mvh
Mats Johannesson




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list