Slashdot Mirror
GNU Libc 2.1.3 Released
Kaz Kylheku writes, "Ulrich Drepper just posted an announcement to the libc-alpha mailing list that the tarballs are out.
This release fixes bugs in diverse areas and improves the stability over last September's glibc-2.1.2 release.
The main archive for this is here and it is sure to
go out to mirrors like wildfire.
Get it, install it, run it---today! "
How is this a troll ? We all know this news item should not have been posted here, that's what freshmeat is for.
I think it's actually a funny comment, not troll.
No, it was an experiment... this info is redundant (i copied it from the link), but was moderated up. Yet, my "fm?/Fresh Meat!" post (an obvious joke on "fp?/First Post!" was moderated down as a troll.
Did you ever report the bug? If you don't report the bugs how can you expect them to be fixed?
If you did report the bug good for you! You have helped.
So to fill the gap, you've stepped up to the plate and are willing to provide the noise, eh?
I read the freshmeat announce newsgroup. Well I skim it. I still believe that stuff like this belongs. Why? I want more then the little blurb that you get with freshmeat. I want to know what it fixes. Why I should care. I want to know what it breaks. If anybody thinks all that stuff will be in the readmes you're dreaming. If you're not interested skip it. I skip most of the stuff on slashdot. It hasn't killed me yet.
And, by all means post really important SW releases on the main page
You mean stuff like the Windows 2000 release?
Naw. Widget 3.1.56.4pl345 is more important.
man termcap, idiot.
erm.. this should have just *maybe* been "-1:win kiddy" [or offtopic.. either way]
good job!
Thank you.
Thank you for just proving my point. I'm accessing Linux from lame hardware sometimes. No choice. The fact that you suggest man as the solution only highlights what I'm saying. It's pathetic that info will just refuse to run without full screen control. Sure I could just set my term variables to vt100, but then I see a lot of crap in the info page. While, in all fairness, the man page whines about crappy terminals too, it will then go forward and display the man page anyway, sans the pretty underlining and bold text. Info just says "fuck you" and aborts. You see no problem here? Of course we all know it's not info that dies. It's emacs that refuses to run without screen control. What a marvelously stupid cmeans to display pages of text. Incorporatiing an editor that *just* *can't* *run* on dumb terminals... tisk tisk tisk. At the very least, if info is smart enough to detect dumb terminals, then it should spawn another viewer. And even when info can run, the pages look like bad web pages with the whitespace removed. Fucking links everywhere. And looks even worse on monochrome text displays. Man was clean. Info, a true credit to emacs, suffers from kitchen sink syndrome.
.a files are statically linkable libraries, but they've also been in ELF format for years. No one in their right mind uses the a.out format anymore. Note that just because GCC calls it's output a.out by default does not mean it is in a.out format -it's usually ELF. Somewhat confusingly, a.out format is independent the a.out,b.out,c.out naming convention...
/lib/ld.so, amiga shared libraries are reentrant code segments (so only one copy ever exists in memory) loaded at run time by calls to exec.library/OpenLibrary(). Amiga C compilers hide calls to OpenLibrary() in an _init() function)
a.out has a number of disadvantages - lot of work to port to a new processor, and no shared libraries the main two (unless of course you're implementing shared libraries the amiga way - while most linux libraries are dynamically linked in by the helper program
Absolutely dootley. Right on. Mr. Drepper, I want your babies.
> My Slackware/Libc5 based network will outperform any Glibc-2.x.x based abomination, and I'll gladly
> subject my network to any test you can muster.
I have 130,000 user accounts on this machine. Please explain how I can make it work with libc5.
Otherwise, shut the hell up.
Unlikely. any non-trivial threaded app I write will crash netscape pretty consistently. digging around, it looks like netscape's green threads implementation is fubared.
It's sad that you're a gay little karma ho. It's
sad that moderators actually pay attention to that
trite "*sniff* Go ahead, moderate me down"
crap. It's even more sad that they so reliably
reward it with your desired *positive* points.
You make me sick. I bet you are French, too, you
gay French goat felcher.
About a year Alan Cox didn't want this:
(libio.h):
...
As a special exception, if you link this library with files
compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does
not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General
Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any
other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU
General Public License. */
Well Red Hat bought Cygnus
but things didn't change!
Frank
it does not compile:
../csu/crt1.o ../csu/crti.o `gcc --print-file-name=crtbegin.o` makedb.o libdb.so.3 -Wl,-rpath-link=..:../math:../elf:../nss:../nis:.: ../rt:../resolv ../libc.so.6 ../libc_nonshared.a -lgcc `gcc --print-file-name=crtend.o` ../csu/crtn.o
gcc -nostdlib -nostartfiles -o makedb -Wl,-dynamic-linker=/usr/tmp/lib/ld-linux.so.2
../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `__libc_cleanup_end'
../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `fputs_unlocked'
../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `__syscall_error'
../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `fread_unlocked'
../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `fflush_unlocked'
../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `fwrite_unlocked'
../libc.so.6: undefined reference to `fgets_unlocked'
make[1]: *** [makedb] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/a/glibc-2.1.3/db2'
make: *** [db2/others] Error 2
:(
Nice to see the Internet is accessible from the afterlife. So you can take your links with you?
No shared libraries in a.out ? Ever used Sun OS 4, Linux before 2.0, FreeBSD? Shared libraries existed in a.out before ELF was invented. Sun ported them from SVR3 COFF.
Ulrich? Is that you? Thanks for replying! You rock!
#1 fan
Fresh Meat?
What was wrong with a.out format?
I've uploaded the 2.1.3 release of glibc to
.gz)
,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/glibc/releases
There you can find the files
glibc-2.1.3.tar.bz2 (also
glibc-2.1.2-2.1.3.diff.gz
glibc-linuxthreads-2.1.3.tar.gz
There is no new crypt add-on since it hasn't changed.
This release fixes many bugs in all parts of the library and everybody
is encouraged to update. Preferably through your distribution
provider since compiling glibc yourself means taking a risk unless you
know exactly what you are doing.
This release should be fully compatible (both directions) with glibc
2.1.2. The only part which changed is the format of the files
containing the locale data. This can be easily fixed by running the
`localedef' program for the locales which get used on the system (or
by running `make localedata/install-locales' to update all of them).
--
---------------. drepper at gnu.org
Ulrich Drepper \
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
New != better.
I am happy that the crypt() code needed no changes - this indicates that it is stable. Stable crypto code = good.
You might consider picking up the small, free Cygnus C library as a foundation. It is intended for embedded use, and is also the foundation for the Cygwin Unix emulation for win32. Thus, it should be both light weight and relatively complete.
The GNU C library is used on Linux and Hurd, and earlier versions also worked on SunOS. This was useful back when Sun didn't have an ANSI compliant C library.
It implements many standards, apart from ANSI/ISO C also various Posix and Open Group standards.
It will never be completely debugged, since both the standards and the underlying OS'es keep changing.
It is written in GNU C.
It's effect on performance depends on what you do. It can range from "none" to the only significant factor, depending on how much your application uses library functions.
TO answer your question: most operating systems implement their own C library because they are proprietary. The developers of one OS do not cooperate with those of another OS.
The GNU Libc does support operating systems other than Linux; it is compilable across multiple architectures.
There is a lot of stuff other than standard C that is implemented; a library for a UNIX-like system must implement the POSIX interfaces as well as The Single UNIX Specification.
A C library is typically written using the C language, but with platform-specific extensions and tricks. Obviously, the system call mechanism that is used to interface with the system can't be written in C. Certain assumptions about the hardware are made here and there. (Consider implementing stuff like , or printf conversions, etc).
C libraries are not fully debugged after years of development because they are large, and the standards are moving targets. In the case of glibc, it's actually not that old. From what I understand, glibc2 is a rewrite of glibc1.
I suspect that proprietary libc's are more stable because they have been around longer. But they acquire new bugs when they implement new UNIX features.
The quality of a library implementation is critical to system stability, and in some cases performance as well. Obviously, those library funtions that are basically thin wrappers around operating system calls don't impact performance much. On the other hand, there are areas where optimizations can make a huge difference: things that come to mind are DNS resolver functions, the stuff in .
I understand that the priority needs to be a stable C library, and that the other stuff is really so much frippery, when you get right down to it. On the other hand, I would find it almost impossible to imagine two fairly significant bits of code requiring -NO- updates or touches for such a large leap in versions.
I've not plowed through the entire 2.1.3 sources to see how much of this old code they've simply rolled in, but I don't see any READMEs or notices in the glibc directory declaring the files as obsolete, either.
This is NOT a complaint. Ok, well, maybe it is. I simply think it'd be nice if related software could be kept in sync, with either versioning or notices stating that.
PS: Last distro to upgrade is a rotten LinuxOne!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
A month after Debian freezes, we're seeing long-awaited major new revisions of various pieces of software (libc being the least notable) Did one of the founders of Debian anger the gods of the Internet or something? :-)
/usr/share/doc/libc/README.Debian.gz makes a lot of comments about 'new CVS checkout', so this might not be far from where we are..
Luckily, the package-pools stuff will supposedly get this stuff into a 'semi-stable' distribution posthaste, although I'd be a little nervous about throwing a new libc in. [1]
Daniel
[1] OTOH,
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
With the relaxed US export restrictions, could it be included in the regular package?
To the best of my knowledge, no. I believe that the source code export restrictions have not been removed. Binaries only. Good for M$, good for NS/AOL, not good for us.
Any stability improvement with Java turned on?
Glibc 2.1.3 is on my Potato system so I see no need of complaining.
I have found that Netscape works much better with this libc than 2.1.2. No mysterious crashes when closing Netscape windows.
Have you tried to get the tarballs today?
Good luck.
The dang place has been overwhelmed !
Oh boy !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
However, all of that massive feature-set support and backwards compatibility and cross-kernel compatibility incurs a cost; doing a stat() is no longer just a system call, but instead has to pass through a layer of glibc code to convert whatever the kernel's struct stat du jour is to the glibc "standard" format. And symbol versioning, while extremely useful, adds complexity and latency to the start-up of processes which link against glibc (i.e. EVERYONE).
Linus has commented a few timees that glibc is a little too heavyweight for his tastes; others have noted that, while the Linux kernel's fork() rate and latency are incredible, it's the ld.so complexity and latency that kills us on exec()s.
I have often pondered a project to parallel glibc, called "tlibc" - the Thin C Library. This library would have to be compiled against the kernel it expects to run against; what's more, apps would then have to be compiled against the newly compiled tlibc, because it only guarantees source-compatibility (and that only so long as kernel interface structures don't change in fascinating and difficult-to-handle ways).
Sure, it would be a PITA to develop such a system, but imagine it in the context of a distribution... let the applications come as close to the "raw iron" of the kernel as possible to eek that extra 3% performance out of Apache/Samba/etc. Remember, most production systems pick a distribution and stick with it, WITHOUT DOING ANY NON-SECURITY UPGRADES, for a long time. This could actually be plausible.
Then again, maybe it's just pipe dream. I dunno.
I remember when we had to imagine a guy who was thinking about using an abacus. We'd have to do metamath using the imaginary abacus, in the mind of the imaginary guy to get our work done.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
On re-reading, again, I see that part of what I just wrote is unclear.
When I refer to October GNOME, I mean that Red Hat should have waited for that release. I don't mean that October GNOME is unfit for production use.
Oh, I don't mind bugfixes at all.. I love them, in fact.
The problem is, upgrading a Red Hat 5.x box to glibc 2.1 (now standard in Slack 7) is impractical, because of the soname issue. (libc.so.6 vs. libc.so.6). If Red Hat had heeded the glibc unstable warning, in the same way they heed the kernel unstable warnings (2.2.x vs 2.3.x), I'd be happy.
You see, since Slackware stuck with libc.so.5, upgrading to glibc 2.1 is relatively painless (the transition can be made gradually, first with new apps, then recompiling/reinstalling the older stuff), because the sonames are different.
Glibc developers aren't to blame, because they left the soname the same, while breaking binary compatibility. You weren't supposed to be using the unstable library in a production box, anyway. Red Hat just got too "cool" and jumped the gun, in the same way they loaded on GNOME far before it was really ready for use (October GNOME).
This reminds me of the inflammatory emails linux-kernel gets, when people whine that some internal structure changed, and that linux will never be "professionally trusted" if they keep breaking things.
Hey, the glibc people WARNED the world that glibc 2.0 was unstable.
It's not their fault, like you make it out to be, that distributions like Redhat included glibc 2.0, only to find out that glibc 2.1 broke binary compatibility.
Stick with Slackware if you want to avoid that sort of problem. Everyone snickered at Slackware, saying "it's so backward" because it didn't "upgrade" to the new, unstable library...
Now the glibc 2.1 series is out, marked "stable", Slackware is fine, and the Red Hat 5.x boxes are having problems with libc.so.6 (from glibc 2.0) not working like libc.so.6 (from glibc.2.1). Who's snickering now?
It's true - That's what freshmeat is for (and IMHO not slashdot).
How about adding another section (to accompany apache, askslashdot, etc - maybe called "releases") so that people can filter the stories out a bit easier.
Just my 2 cents.....
This is one of the more "Insightful" posts I've seen on /. in a long time!
/. but leave most for freshmeat.
Create a section for semi important software releases on
And, by all means post really important SW releases on the main page.
Yeah.
As much as I loathe M$, Why2k is rather relevant but Gadget 4.0.3pre42.alpha is not....
Hey,
:-D
Please set your system clock to todays date. We can not allow people to download tomorrows software today
Seriously, it seems as if there is a version numbering problem....
I think it's a shame that crypto is still a separate add-on module. With the relaxed US export restrictions, could it be included in the regular package? There could be a --nocrypto configure option for people building French distributions.
It just seems that it makes life easier for almost everyone if they're one package. (Imagine if the Linux kernel was distributed separately from all the device drivers...)
no support for shared libraries
all your foo.so files are ELF, as are the executables that use them
.a files IIRC are pre-compiled statically linkable binaries, in a.out format
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde
Grrr. my nick is "Forward the Light Brigade"...
Slashdot-powers-that-be, please add this '(GPL) releases' category.
$ rpm -qa | grep libc
glibc-devel-2.1.3-6
compat-glibc-5.2-2.0.7.1
libc-5.3.12-31
quake2-3.20-glibc-6
glibc-2.1.3-6
And I haven't even downloaded anything today!
See you, space cowboy...
Wibble! Since when was snickering good? Since when was Slackware something to gloat about over and above RedHat?
Being cutting-edge is intrinsically good; if you can't put up with the occasional bug and fix coming rapidly along, go back to another OS, thou evil troll!
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
"RedHat just got too "cool" and jumped the gun"
/etc/init.d/devpts.sh, or whatever. I get the impression there are folks out there who aren't suited to doing this kind of thing... RedHat's errors were (a) in targetting that kind of, er, "user" (I believe they're called) and (b) not living up to the stability thing. Either way of looking at it it could be seen to be "broken".
Yup, that's always possible.
I'm hardly a RedHat fan, for all I disagreed with the "slackware v RedHat" in the original comment.
"...linux will never be "professionally trusted"..."
Eeek, that argument is so bogus it's unbelievable. "Professionals" either aren't being professional, or are just being lusers if they can't cope with the occasional fix.
Me, the way I operate is at the cutting edge of Debian "unstable" - not "potato" or "frozen", the real unstable thing. I apt-get dist-upgrade every day as a matter of course; and I have to wangle things to get packages to install, such as hacking
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
The GNU C library (version 2) only supports Linux and Hurd as kernels, as far as I know. Some README file somewhere says that porting it to other OSes should be an easy task, but it looks like it hasn't been done.
to the GNU libc team.
Writing a libc is a horribly fastidious job. Perhaps not as technically hard as writing a C compiler like gcc, but probably far more tedious. Making everything reentrant, maintaining nitty-gritty compatibility with the standards, trying hard not to break everything with each release, this is a very hard job. Remember, for one thing that the headers must compile with gcc -O6 -Wall -ansi -pedantic -W -Wstrict-prototypes -Wcast-qual -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings and this isn't really obvious. Also consider the important aspect of namespace pollution which must be avoided at all costs.
The GNU libc is a fantastic thing. It beats the hell out of the old libc5, which I found mostly worthless. It does a wonderful job of respecting the standards (just look at the features.h header file for an idea) while at the same time providing its own features when they seem useful. And it is very efficient. The documentation is very good, also (very complete, while at the same time very readable; and lots of examples too), even though I detest this texinfo format.
Also remember that a good part of the GNU Hurd is actually in the libc, since it takes care of communicating with the daemons of the Hurd and providing the interfaces (representing depth) that simulate Unix behavior.
ELF symbol versioning is another great thing that was introduced with version 2.1 of the libc. Not to mention things like IPv6 support and so on. In fact, I find that the libc is definitely ahead of the kernel (consider the case of the getcontext() function, which the libc has support for, but tthe kernel is still lacking.
The GNU libc plays an essential role in making our OS what it is. It gets far less attention than the kernel (because of its “cathedral” development model), but it is just as important (remember: a well-written program never sees the kernel, it only sees the libc; the libc is what keeps Unix united, and it can even achieve binary compatibility), and the GNU libc programmers certainly deserve praise for what they are writing.
So, congratulations to Andreas Jaeger, Ulrich Drepper and all the others.
As an addendum to this:
for versions of glibc -prior- to 2.x (I think it
may be broken in 2.0 as well, but I don't recall what the results of the testing were), the aforementioned behaviour didn't exist.
This -has- been verified by using different glibc versions on the same machine, and using different glibc and C library versions on different operating systems (AIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Linux were the OS's used for testing this behaviour).
There's one bug in particular that I'd like to see fixed, but I don't know how prevalent of a thing it is...*shurgs*
fork() is/was broken in 2.1.0, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 for the specific app that it's being used for, and the manner that it's being used is consistent with how it's supposed to work (IIRC).
*shrug*
basically: in the case where an app forks off a child process, then returns, and then has another child process fork()'d (each process running the same external app), is it still freezing/not returning from the child cleanly?
That seems to be the bahaviour, at any rate...
(source code for the app can be provided for testing of this behaviour).
But I do think they should have their own section.
I know all about Freshmeat, and I read it regularly, but it's full of software that just doesn't interest me. Today I've had to sift through a program to flash Morse code on the keyboard LEDs, a window manager that describes itself as "pointless", and a whole lot of programs for manipulating my non existent MP3 collection in previously unimagined ways. I don't mean to bash these programs in particular. I'm sure they're good at what they do, and that the authors have put a lot of hard work into them. I'm afraid they just don't interest me.
The software that appears on Slashdot is the really important stuff (IMO): Linux kernels, C libraries, X servers, etc. I like to hear about it on Slashdot. When we start seeing "Yet another HTML preprocessor 1.2.1.1" on the front page I'll complain as loud as everyone else, but until then I'll be happy.
Perhaps the real problem is with Freshmeat?
Love
Molly
I'm not complaining that this was posted on Slashdot. Slashdot can post whatever they'd like. But it doesn't belong under the GNU heading. It, along with all the development kernel releases, and the new versions of XFree86 need to have their own section. I, like a great many people here, read Freshmeat precisely for this sort of thing. I understand that some things deserve to be posted here on /., and all I'm asking for is the ability to filter them out.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The reason I argued the point, was because there's an obvious trend on Slashdot now for posting software releases. I think those releases *deserve* their own section, in the same sense that BSD and Apache do. I'd like to be able to create a slashbox for new releases, so I can go discuss them. They have a place on Slashdot, but I don't think it's mixed in with all the other stuff.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's sad that ANY comment could conceivably fit each category
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Gotcha...
I fully agree with what you think are major releases, and I also don't really think that the Stampede code freeze qual'd as 'major'... once it is actually released, maybe... Like "1.0 released today", rather than ".90 coming Any Week Now(TM)"... Considering that you *need* a c lib to build Linux, I'd consider this pretty major... anything that you *need* to run (some people don't need X, but..) Linux/BSD/Foonix/BarSD 8^) Not like "I *need* pine, and version umdiddlysquat.whoosymawhatchis.whatchmacallit is out - YAY!", but legit components of the system.
My point was that even a 'minor' version increment for glibc is rather *major*... the previous updates were:
2.0.6 12/29/97
2.1.1 5/25/99
2.1.2 9/7/99
2.1.3 2/25/00
Not really an everyday sort of thing... I think it deserves a post here. That's all.
Minor is tougher to define, but I think it's safe to say that it is anything that isn't 'major' 8^D
Or whatever...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
1) People complaining that announcements should be on Freshmeat, leave them there...
/. , since that certainly falls in the news for nerds that should be widely spoken... I also have problems with the amount of 'no good for anything I do' programs on freshmeat, though I'm very happy that a resource like that is there... but I won't check it every day... or even every week, since most of it just doesn't apply... /. Maybe they should be a section that you can opt out of, but by default, they should be shown.
2) People complaining about those people, saying that 99% of the stuff on Freshmeat doesn't apply to them, but major releases like libc, XFree, Kernels, do, so keep listing it here...
3) People complaining about troll moderation for #1
4) More complaining that we should have a new section for these sorts of things...
5) People complaining that this isn't new...
6) People complaining about all of the complaints 8^)
and soon...
7) People complaining about me 8^)
I maintain that kernel releases, major X announcements, and other key components (GCC, Glibc, etc) should be announced on
Major announcements should be done on
Even though this is a x.x.1 increase, it *has* been quite some time, and *is* a fairly major step. If every day we got the libc-digest posted here, I'd start to worry, but if the last update was in September, and this interval is too often for you to handle it... (you're creative enough to figure out what I was thinking here, I'll bet)
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Just two days after I finally installed 2.1.2 properly.... ;-)
My, does 2.1.3 also build itself "recursively" on 'make install' like 2.1.2?
glibc comes with a manual in texinfo format. Is this manual available somewhere online in HTML format? I know that texinfo 4 can produce HTML output, not to mention texinfo2html perl script. The pointer to a ready-made HTML will be appreciated though.
It's funny. A joke. Laugh. Ha-Ha. Come on guys..
-- Ace
On Freshmeat, there is rarely any meaningful discussion of software announcements, especially regarding essential components of the system as glibc. There is, however, a plethora of meaningful discussion and insight on Slashdot about important software releases that one is unable to find on Freshmeat. I know I am pleased to find an outlet for mine and others' ideas regarding various things such as X and kernels that, if posted in in Reply to an article regarding, say, Privacy, would be moderated down as Offtopic and consequently not seen by anyone.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
ELF is not GNU, lots of Unices (Like Solaris) have been using it for years. Mainly because only an idiot would attemt to create shared librarys with a.out.
TeX is not GNU, it was written by Donald Knuth. Never used troff, but I hear it was bad in comparison.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
I agree (for what it's worth) with Mekanix: leave the 0.0.1 updates to Freshmeat. I realize that the two websites aren't really related (they are just owned by the same company), but it would be nice to see some cooperation as that is what Open Source is all about...
I'm was using Redhat 6.1 and after I upgrading I got a few errors that flashed by then I locked up and rebooted and hangs during boot with the following error: BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dynamic_link.h: 49: elf_get_dynamic_info: Assertion '! "bad dynamic tag"' failed! Any RH users successfully update this?
Even very stable releases of GLIBC can cause major problems when you upgrade wantonly. This is the one package (for RedHat users) that shouldn't be upgraded unless you really do know what you are doing. I would be *very* cautious until vendors start including it in things like RawHide.
:-)
The issue is that almost all programs on your system depend on glibc. This is about the only library about which such is true. Also the glibc people are infamous for binary (and hell, source too) incompatibility...even between minor versions. In addition it sounds like most of the gains are stability. If you end up screwing your system over...you haven't increased stability much, eh?
Just watch out
-nullity-
I am nothing.
Real Men bypass libc and use straight system calls to interface with the kernel. Ha! And none of this weeny C crap either. Everything handcoded in assembly... I remember the days when we wrote our first assembler in straight binary. Nah, forget that, I remember PUNCH CARDS! And running programs in your head because it took two days to pass through the machine!
libc
don't make me laugh....
*borkborkbork*
Someone inform me. Why do most operating systems implement their own C library? Is glibc compile-able across multiple architectures? Is it merely standard C that is implemented in these libraries or is there a lot of other stuff that needs to be implemented? What is a C library written in? Why are they not fully-debugged after years of development? Are some implementations better than others? How much does the quality of an implementation impact system performance?
Honest questions.
-troll taker
I just noticed a most amazing property if /.
I am in IE 4 for anyone who wants to know what browser
Every time I refresh the main page it morphs!
The / boxes move around maybe a cm and the stories all move 1cm this way or that horitzontally.
I cannot do this on any other site!
Cool ehh!
I know this is a direct attack to your argument which I somewhat dislike (singling out a person).
;-) okay okay thats a little biting im just picking. How big of a deal is it. I know some people cruise FM all day but some of us COME to slash dot to hear what people got to say about software like this.
So I will make this as a suggestion.
Skip over the articles. It doesnt hurt to see GNU Libc x.y.z is out and just not read it does it? I mean if it does I will complain for you
If there was a filter for *everything* people wanted hemos and taco would spend all day coding filters! use your brain it filters excellent.. I got so good I could totally ignore my wife
*nods* That makes sense. I think I would actually like that to. :-)
Come on.
:P
/.
/. for about a year and these have always been here and I like them and its just a part of /. sooo stop it :p
/. has been posting software upgrades like this for all eternity. I mean they dont report things like Frog0.0.1 First Release
I happen to enjoy reading about what others have to say on the software that is "important" to the community. glibc IS important
Ive learned a WHOLE lot by what other people have said here at
Please do not go bashing saying this belongs at FM
Been reading
Or is this just another should-have-been-on-Freshmeat-release-update?
Bjarne
I agree with that major releases should be announced on
For major releases I would think something in the lines of XFree4.0, FreeBSD4.0, Linux2.4 and not all those nightly CVS-builds....
But I may be wrong, so would someone please explain to me what "major" includes and the difference between major and minor. Right now I don't see any.
Bjarne
Re:ann...crypt add-on
(Score:-2)
by NRLax27 on 7:56 25 February 2000 PST
(User Info)
If you follow the link in the glibc-crypt.readme on ftp.gnu.org, it brings you to a site that has a 2.1.3 version of the libcrypt addon. Did they just change the version number to match, or is there really a new version?
END:cut-and-paste
I don't like the fact that some people now seem to have a default score of -2.
-- My comment is above.