Re: glibc-2.8 tarballs?

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Monday 19 May 2008, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Allin Cottrell wrote:
> > Thanks for the tip.  Somehow I feel more comfortable building
> > glibc from an "official" versioned tar.gz, though maybe that is
> > just superstition on my part.
>
> Tarballs are a completely outdated concept.  I've said multiple times
> that I won't waste my time on them.  Tarballs are static.  If I would
> have made a 2.8 tarballs then I shortly afterwards would have had to
> made 2.8.1 and perhaps more.  There are always going to be changes.
> That's what appropriately-tagged branches in CVS are for.  You take the
> latest version of the release branch and you know you have the version
> which you are intended to use.

it'd be nice if you actually told people you werent going to be making 
tarballs.  i doubt i'm the only one who has been watching the gnu.org site to 
see when tarballs were actually going to be showing up.  there is no mention 
of this policy change in any e-mails you've posted or on the gnu glibc 
websites.  also a little ironic you consider tarballs an outdated concept, 
yet glibc is still using cvs ... and am i the only one who remembers the 
disaster that followed the last time releases were stopped being made and 
distributors were expected to go through cvs and roll their own ?  or is 
glibc now pushing a similar policy to the libc-ports: if you want something 
usable, go use fedora or buy redhat ?
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.