bugs in malloc

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 10 December 2009 07:12:05 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > worked, and is not an option if _I_ don't want to have to switch to
> > eglibc. (Which is lgplv3.  Ew.)
>
> It appears you haven't actually looked at the EGLIBC sources.

Not since a couple of the glibc developers announced their intention to switch 
the project to lgplv3 back in 2007, no.  I knew they'd pushed the move from 
lgplv2 to lgplv2.1 over Ulrich Drepper's objections:

  http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2001-August/003206.html

So I basically washed my hands of the project back then.  (The last glibc 
version I built from source was 2.5.7.)

> It's
> LGPLv2.1 (or greater, so if you want to distribute pieces under LGPLv3 you
> can), like FSF GLIBC.  What happens if FSF GLIBC changes license is up to
> the EGLIBC Consortium.

EGLIBC FAQ #1: eglibc is not meant to be a fork.

  http://www.eglibc.org/faq

So you're saying the FSF didn't go through with the license switch on the base 
project they're not forking?  /me checks glibc git...  Nope, not yet.  Looks 
like Red Hat or somebody argued 'em out of it, at least so far.  Cool.

Good to know.  Thanks.  I might take a poke at eglibc this weekend then.

Rob
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds