libc update progress?

Matthew Dillon dillon at
Sun May 1 13:01:10 PDT 2005

:The main reason why I don't like having it as blobs in the CVS tree is
:the same situation FreeBSD faced often enough: What happens if we find
:a big security flaw e.g. in libc (hello, realpath)? We can fix the
:old libc, rebuild it and put the fixed version up as new package. Sure,
:we could add it also the CVS repo, but that adds bloat.
:The use of the CVS version will be greatly going down over the time,
:but the bloat persist. I suggested installing it by default or
:untarring it as part of the ISO build, because that catches the single
:critical case: new installation wanting to use old packages. If you
:do a make world on an existing machine, it doesn't touch the old libc
:at all. Read: it is there, the same version everything else was built
:against. If someone accidently / intentionally removes the installed
:libs, he could still fetch the package, just as if you would have
:installed it from a new ISO.

    I agree re: the CVS bloat issue... *but* we can always remove it
    later.  Right now I think it's more important to maintain continuity
    between the old and new libs.

					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

More information about the Kernel mailing list