Problem with VMware 2.0.4 and glibc 2.2.5

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:53:11PM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 06:20:10PM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> 
> > > With such a change an the fact, that the old, wrong behaviour is
> > > descriped in nearly every Linux documentation which contains a
> > > description for nice, Yes, we should give it a new version.
> > 
> > What do we have to do with Linux documentation? We are glibc and
> > according to the glibc documentation nice() should return the
> > priority. Manual pages aren't official glibc documentation. If I write
> > some documentation saying that nice() should return 72925, do we have
> > to make another version for that? 
> 
> No, we should only remember that nearly all programs using nice() for
> Linux are "broken" and that we should not break all this applications
> with such a change. I think this is such a dramatic change which will
> break many applictions, that we should introduce a new version to give
> the people the chance to use their old binaries until all software is
> fixed.

glibc isn't made to workaround all programmer's bugs. We never change
interfaces for bugfixes, if we are going to do that glibc will get
pretty bloated. I don't see why we should change the behaviour because
the amount of applications relying on a bug is higher this time. The
applications need to get fixed anyhow, just fix it now and recompile
it.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20020410/b049fc10/attachment.sig>