Terry Sikes wrote:
>
> Nathan Meyers wrote:
>
> > There was an interesting comment in a column in the current Linux
> > Journal: evidently glibc 2.0 was an "experimental" release. Problem
> > is... it was a widely adopted experimental release. The JDK is in good
> > company: many applications were broken by the move to 2.1, which is
> > slowing acceptance of RH6.
>
> I don't understand how this happened. I would have thought that, like the
> kernel, glibc would have 'stable' and 'experimental' versions. No one
> should base production (release) code on 'experimental' anything.
It happened because people needed glibc... and the experimental nature
wasn't widely publicized. Red Hat trusted glibc 2.0 enough to build
their 5.x release stream around it, so it's hard to get too upset at the
Blackdown port (and many other projects) for following that lead.
An excerpt from http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/faq-index.html :
'Glibc 2 is the latest version of the GNU C Library. (A C library is a
set of routines used to develop C programs. Pretty much every program on
your Linux system uses the C library.) It currently runs unmodified on
GNU Hurd systems, and Linux i386, m68k, and alpha systems. Ports to
Linux PowerPC, MIPS, and Sparc are actively being developed. In the
future support for other architectures and operating systems will be
added. On Linux, glibc 2 is used as the libc with major version 6, the
successor of the Linux libc 5.
'Glibc 2 is titled "experimental." It is not yet ready for general use,
but should be fairly stable. As of 2.0.4, people have been using this
exculsively with no problems. Version 2.1 will be ready for main stream
use.'
Nathan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
