Re: Problem with VMware 2.0.4 and glibc 2.2.5

[Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk at suse dot de>]

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.

  Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Kukuk       http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/        kukuk@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG        Deutschherrenstr. 15-19       D-90429 Nuernberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------    
Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE  2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B

Attachment: msg00053/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature