5 ms·

And no GNU libc. Idiocy.

by lelf 13y ago

bluefinity 13y ago
eglibc is basically the same thing, except better. Ubuntu, Debian, and Arch all use eglibc.
- laumars 13y ago
  Arch uses glibc - though the two projects are currently merging anyway.
- B-Con 13y ago
  I don't see anything to suggest that Arch uses eglibc. The glibc package in the repos is clearly the original glibc (look at the name, package URL, and build config) and there is no other package named "eglibc". Also, a very recent forum post[1] implies eglibc is not the standard. Wikipedia says[2] that Arch uses eglibc, but their source is the eglibc website home page and I find no such claim on the entire site. I can't find anything about eglibc on the Arch mailing list, either. Have I missed something? [0]: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/glibc/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/glibc/ [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?177180 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?177180 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library
  - bluefinity 13y ago
    Yeah, you're right, I can't find anything saying Arch is using eglibc either. I did get my information on it from that Wikipedia article, I guess I should have checked the citations.
masklinn 13y ago
eglibc has slowly been merged upstream for the last 2 years. The next eglibc release (2.19) not only will be the last, but it's recommended to use glibc instead unless there's specific need: > I have now set up the EGLIBC 2.19 branch. This is the last EGLIBC release branch; unless you are relying on changes in EGLIBC relative to glibc that have not been merged to glibc, you are advised to use glibc 2.19 branch instead of EGLIBC 2.19 branch. If you are relying on such changes, listed below, you should plan to contribute such features to glibc so you can cease using EGLIBC http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01327.html http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01327.html Although versions are unspecified, for all intents and purposes testing eglibc was either identical to or better than testing glibc.
Sanddancer 13y ago
A lot of this page dates back to a few years back when glibc had severe bugs in its maintainer, and the eglibc branch/fork was the better choice. Regardless, given the commonalities of the codebases, it's doubtful that the numbers between glibc and eglibc are going to be much different.
diydsp 13y ago
Hmmm. I can see you're frustrated, but it's coming out sounding like you feel entitled to other's free work. Perhaps if you feel the need you could use the author's benchsuite at http://www.etalabs.net/libc-bench.html http://www.etalabs.net/libc-bench.html to test GNU libc and share the results with everyone.

And no GNU libc. Idiocy.

by lelf 13y ago

And no GNU libc. Idiocy.

bluefinity 13y ago

eglibc is basically the same thing, except better. Ubuntu, Debian, and Arch all use eglibc.

laumars 13y ago
Arch uses glibc - though the two projects are currently merging anyway.
B-Con 13y ago
I don't see anything to suggest that Arch uses eglibc. The glibc package in the repos is clearly the original glibc (look at the name, package URL, and build config) and there is no other package named "eglibc". Also, a very recent forum post[1] implies eglibc is not the standard. Wikipedia says[2] that Arch uses eglibc, but their source is the eglibc website home page and I find no such claim on the entire site. I can't find anything about eglibc on the Arch mailing list, either. Have I missed something? [0]: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/glibc/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/glibc/ [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?177180 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?177180 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library
- bluefinity 13y ago
  Yeah, you're right, I can't find anything saying Arch is using eglibc either. I did get my information on it from that Wikipedia article, I guess I should have checked the citations.

masklinn 13y ago

eglibc has slowly been merged upstream for the last 2 years. The next eglibc release (2.19) not only will be the last, but it's recommended to use glibc instead unless there's specific need: > I have now set up the EGLIBC 2.19 branch. This is the last EGLIBC release branch; unless you are relying on changes in EGLIBC relative to glibc that have not been merged to glibc, you are advised to use glibc 2.19 branch instead of EGLIBC 2.19 branch. If you are relying on such changes, listed below, you should plan to contribute such features to glibc so you can cease using EGLIBC http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01327.html http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg01327.html Although versions are unspecified, for all intents and purposes testing eglibc was either identical to or better than testing glibc.

Sanddancer 13y ago

A lot of this page dates back to a few years back when glibc had severe bugs in its maintainer, and the eglibc branch/fork was the better choice. Regardless, given the commonalities of the codebases, it's doubtful that the numbers between glibc and eglibc are going to be much different.

diydsp 13y ago

Hmmm. I can see you're frustrated, but it's coming out sounding like you feel entitled to other's free work. Perhaps if you feel the need you could use the author's benchsuite at http://www.etalabs.net/libc-bench.html http://www.etalabs.net/libc-bench.html to test GNU libc and share the results with everyone.