On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:46:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> Historical footnote: I believe it was initially added to help squeeze
>>> boot portion of Anaconda onto floppy disks. If the things you list are
>>> really the only things using it, I think it's time to retire it
>> The package was actually imported by Enrico in 2005.
>> If what you say is correct, that would mean it was already retired and he
>> resurrected it.
> I must admit that I've forgotten what review procedure had been used
> in 2005. Only have found this odd thread:
> RFE: dietlibc review
> Who remembers the details?
I just found this: https://www.redhat.com/**archives/fedora-extras-list/**
I also vaguely recall some controversial reviews, where Enrico insisted on
using dietlibc instead of glibc for "performance reasons".
I see no reason not to keep dietlibc around for development use, but I'd
see packages use glibc.
How should we sort out the devel ownership issue? If we don't hear back in
X time I just take that branch too, or what?
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love