This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
------- Start of forwarded message ------- To: drepper@cygnus.com (Ulrich Drepper) Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl>, libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: RMS is at it again X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51 63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92 From: tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Date: 29 Jun 2000 07:11:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: Ulrich Drepper's message of "28 Jun 2000 15:48:12 -0700" Content-Type: text Content-Length: 869 [ Please forward this by hand to libc-hacker since my direct mail still gets bounced. ] Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes: > To some extend. But RMS still is in the position to say what is a GNU > project and what not. Sort of. But not really. If you fork, and say "I'm splitting from GNU libc" (as did the EGCS people) then a fork will happen, rms will find some maintainer somewhere, and the world will suck. But if you say "I'm going to continue to maintain libc" and simply respectfully answer his email but not give in on his requests merely because he makes them (in fact, bring them to the attention of libc-hacker right away!) then things will proceed without any fork. RMS will never tell an active GNU maintainer that they are no longer the maintainer, as long as their work is still respected and the maintainer has not declared a fork. ------- End of forwarded message -------
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |