Re: glibc-2.4 changes

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> What they basically say in the announcement you linked to is that
> linuxthreads was moved to 'ports' for the sole purpose of being left
> there to rot away.

Yes, though they won't stop other people from maintaining it.
(In fact, one has stepped up to do so, since he has
current projects that require it; see
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2005-07/msg00002.html )

> It seems like a logical conclusion to make that moving the code for
> non-"desktop" CPUs (whatever that's supposed to mean) to 'ports' can
> only be because of the same reason.

Yes.  But again, they won't stop other people from maintaining it.

> Perhaps all just because the glibc maintainers' employers have no
> direct financial incentive to support these non-"desktop" platforms.

Yes.

Remember, though, that maintaining the C library is
an essentially thankless task.  Those guys take a lot
of shit from unhappy users, and it's really hard on them.

The moral of the story is: don't get mad, get to work!
If you want to help maintain a glibc port,
now's a good time to say so.
- Dan

--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com