'errno' horrors...

[Terry Chan]

John,

Hammer on the authors of php, qmail, ucspi-tcp, etc for fixes to the
glibc-2.3.2 problem.  None of the Lunar developers have the time to
fix all the bad programming mentioned above with patches, etc.  If you 
happen to find some patches from mailing lists/forums/authors, then we'll
look at incorporating those patches until those lazy authors get off their
collective duffs and fix their own blessed software.

Lunar is NOT going to roll back to glibc-2.3.1.  All future versions of glibc
will also enforce the strict errno.h rules.

Terry Chan
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:10:58PM -0500, John Wofford wrote:
> I'm sure the developers are all well aware of the issues with glibc 2.3.2
> and errno.  For a basic recap for those who aren't aware, as of glibc
> 2.3.2 it is no longer acceptable to explicitly declare errno as a global
> integer (i.e. no more "extern int errno;", but rather errno.h is to be
> included (#include <errno.h>).  The reasoning for this is all good and
> well, but it has broken some very important modules (for instance, php).
> 
> I certainly wouldn't be suprised if this has been discussed before, so
> bear with me if it has been.  I know for me personally this has been a
> pretty severe issue.  Much of my serving software (php, qmail, ucspi-tcp,
> etc) fails to compile with glibc 2.3.2.  I'm sure it has been an issue for
> others as well.  What is the stance of the developement team on this?  I
> certainly wouldn't mind seeing 1. custom patches for broken modules or, 2.
> a temporary revert to glibc 2.3.1 while this issues are fixed.
> 
> Yes, I know, I can personally revert to 2.3.1 and hold the module, but it
> seems odd to allow key modules to be broken by the default libraries.  It
> also seems to go against the stance that Lunar has taken in the past
> (stability as a priority; how long did Lunar refrain from updating the
> 2.4.18 linux kernel over minor stability issues?)
> 
> What is the stance of the development team on this issue?
> 
> -John
> 
>