On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 19:41, Daniel Schmitt wrote: > On Saturday 21 August 2004 00:36, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 19:29, Martijn Sipkema wrote: > > > > > > It's a pretty serious bug though, in that very basic functionality > > > doesn't not work correctly, and I personally wouldn't go out of my way to > > > program a workaround. > > > > Worse, it claims to be POSIX compliant, and silently does the wrong > > thing. > > > > This 'bug' is not even a bug, it's a stopgap measure, the developers > > intentionally broke POSIX compliance because the kernel support wasn't > > good enough. Now that it's good enough, glibc should be fixed. QED. > > While I, too, believe that this stopgap measure was a bad idea, as far as I > can tell the kernel support is still lacking.
I didn't say it was a bad idea at the time, I just think it's no longer necessary. It works on NPTL 0.61 systems, so obviously the kernel support has improved. The issue is not POSIX compliance, it is more important that it just works, which it does, with the one-liner fix. Debian users have spoken as to what they want, and Debian has a long history of listening to its users. I can't imagine it will be different this time. Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
