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:

> > 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.

Sometimes it is better for your reputation not to break it. And
please tell me, how a user should recompile his binary only software?
With this, we will make only sure that no ISV will develop commercial
software for Linux, because he never knows how often he has to ship
new software.  At first he need to implement a workaround for
a buggy glibc function and then we fix it in a way which breaks his
application again. You will not make friends with this.

  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: msg00058/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature