Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th May 2009 17:41 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Debian and its clones Via LWN, we found a blog post of a Debian maintainer which announces a new package: EGLIBC, a compatible reimplementation of the GNU glibc which "which will soon replace the GNU C Library". Apparently the primary reason is the sadly famous bad maintainership aptitude of Ulrich Drepper, the main libc maintainer.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 43 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 362116
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

Or we could have another "missing" wife on our hands.

What a complete a**hole with absolutely zero interest in substantiating his reasons for making changes and breaking RFCs.

That's second link about the IPv6 is classic. But then again he works for RedHat and this reminds me of the mind-numbingly pointless dribble that went on for a year or more between Apple trying to add changes to GCC and ObjC/ObjC++ and the RedHat maintainers of GCC.

We are close to seeing LLVM reaching C++ completeness and soon Apple will have a complete drop-in replacement, not to mention Debian can weigh the pros/cons for their project using LLVM as well. I'm glad llvm 2.5 is in Debian and hopefully llvm 2.6 brings complete C++ support.

You go to Ulrich's blog and he has several rants about how bad other software projects coding is which is quite rich in irony to how arrogant he is when questioned on his own code.

http://udrepper.livejournal.com/

I'd suggest he learn to use the quotation construct as it makes his entries so much easier on the reader. His rant on OO.org PDF exports is one example of whining.

Reply Score: 11

elanthis Member since:
2007-02-17

LLVM's Clang (LLVM itself is not a compiler) is nowhere near having complete C++ support. You can compile C++ using LLVM-GCC which, of course, does not cut GCC out of the picture like you are apparently hoping for.

Usable C++ support in Clang is at least a year off for the basics, IMO, and probably 2+ years off to be truly feature comparable to GCC (including the improvements GCC is likely going to gain in that time, e.g. improved C++0x support).

Reply Parent Score: 3

SamuraiCrow Member since:
2005-11-19

Clang is being designed from the ground up with C++0x support built in. It will take a while but with the more maintainable code base going to LLVM, we'll see who gets there first.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

two words: strlcpy and strlcat.

Reply Parent Score: 4

JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

While it might be a good idea to put these functions in, because so many want them, I think that they are overrated: they can avoid certain classes of errors, but in many cases string truncation is an error, period, and the real flaw is the use of fixed-length buffers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

franzb Member since:
2007-12-08


What a complete a**hole with absolutely zero interest in substantiating his reasons for making changes and breaking RFCs.


I see...


His rant on OO.org PDF exports is one example of whining.


Hm, I read it and to me it seems he makes a perfectly valid case for OO.org pdf exports having to big sizes compared to pdflatex.

Reply Parent Score: 1

foljs Member since:
2006-01-09

Or we could have another "missing" wife on our hands.


Yes, please by all means equate a difficult to work with maintainer with a known killer. Classy.

We are close to seeing LLVM reaching C++ completeness and soon Apple will have a complete drop-in replacement, not to mention Debian can weigh the pros/cons for their project using LLVM as well. I'm glad llvm 2.5 is in Debian and hopefully llvm 2.6 brings complete C++ support.


And this is related because?

Reply Parent Score: 0

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s related because it’s an example of usurping uncooperative project leads. Apple in this instance were tired of RMS refusing to put some features into GCC, so they decided they needed a better, more modern system they can manage theirselves.

Reply Parent Score: 2