This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jaeger wrote: > I want to have some major release that we put on ftp.gnu.org as > tarball and announce properly. I'm under the impression that the > bi-weekly "anchor-points" are not put up anywhere. Somebody interested in this can surely create a cronjob to do just that. There is no reason why this shouldn't be possible. I personally think tarballs are a completely unsuitable method for distributing glibc. It's OK for some other projects, but every time such a glibc tarball has been created, it was already outdated. The main and only useful method to distribute glibc is via cvs and it has been clearly shown in the last months that this is perfectly acceptable. And re announcements, again the question is "why?". Everybody who has to provide glibc for a larger group or is interested for herself will notice or be pointed to the new policy and know that, say, every Monday morning there is a new "release". But, if this was the only motivation for updating glibc in the past, that person has done an extremely poor job[*] by not including all the important changes which went in since the release. Therefore, announcements serve no purpose (except ego building on the authors' side) since everybody who reads the text and grabbed the tarball also had to go to the current sources. To summarize: IMO tarballs are the wrong form of distribution and announcements are misleading since they "announce" a code base which by itself is not the recommended one. > There're outside some people that do not use cvs, Then those have to go with the times unless somebody volunteers to create tarballs (which is a mistake but I won't stop anybody making it). Using CVS is not the right way to distribute for all projects. But the glibc sources are stable and do not break. At least not in ways which would be noticed in the way releases were prepared in the past. [*] E.g., those people who still report problems against the 2.3.2 tarball. - -- â Ulrich Drepper â Red Hat, Inc. â 444 Castro St â Mountain View, CA â -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/yOt+2ijCOnn/RHQRAkCHAKCAueKHYWz/jFHy+whp1ENUPsa6fQCfeX98 vMng+Rj/qoFDjIHQUO2xaIw= =f7qn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |