Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Glibc 2.30 Released With Unicode 12.1 Support, New POSIX-Proposed Functions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Glibc 2.30 Released With Unicode 12.1 Support, New POSIX-Proposed Functions

    Phoronix: Glibc 2.30 Released With Unicode 12.1 Support, New POSIX-Proposed Functions

    Releasing on schedule was the GNU C Library 2.30 release. Glibc 2.30 brings with it more optimizations and new features for this all-important part of the GNU toolchain...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ary-Glibc-2.30

  • #2
    I miss sem_clocktimedwait().

    Comment


    • #3
      To me "released" implies having at least a tarball available for download.

      Comment


      • #4
        And no C.UTF-8

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tgurr View Post
          To me "released" implies having at least a tarball available for download.
          What's so bad about git tags and release commits?

          Comment


          • #6
            2.30 already, and still no rseq. Wow glibc development is slow :c

            Comment


            • #7
              Glibc must improve a lot and achieve a really a lot faster development pace, it sucks and is terribly outdated. It doesn't impress me there's tons of alternatives.

              What about the Valve/Collabora patches as well?

              Comment


              • #8
                Typo: s/getgents64/getdents64/

                Actually really hyped to see this, I hate having to manually invoke the syscall...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hi-Angel View Post
                  2.30 already, and still no rseq. Wow glibc development is slow :c
                  glibc development suffers from lack of reviewers and developers. developing it isn't sexy; you're not going to become the next programming superstar, nor are you going to get much recognition, despite the fact that almost every linux user depends on it.
                  Instead people complain when you break stuff or that $FEATURE hasn't been merged yet.
                  I think it's great that there ARE (10 or so) people still willing to develop it. If its progress is too slow for you then get involved: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/De...nt_Todo/Master

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mlau View Post
                    glibc development suffers from lack of reviewers and developers. developing it isn't sexy; you're not going to become the next programming superstar, nor are you going to get much recognition, despite the fact that almost every linux user depends on it.
                    Instead people complain when you break stuff or that $FEATURE hasn't been merged yet.
                    I think it's great that there ARE (10 or so) people still willing to develop it.
                    I disagree with this statement. Look at systemd: same as glibc, it's a purely technical project that "not gonna you make a new superstar", which in addition has reputation of being controversial. And yet they has 40 merged PRs for a period of just one week! https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pulse



                    Originally posted by mlau View Post
                    If its progress is too slow for you then get involved: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/De...nt_Todo/Master
                    I think there's more obstacles than that. At the very least: 1. you need a copyright assignment with FSF if you want to contribute to glibc. 2. glibc is one of those projects where development is done with mailing list instead of gitlab/github/etc. Clearly, none of that gonna attract new developers.

                    And then if you managed somehow to get past these problems, you gonna stumble upon lack of reviewers, yeah, so you gonna need to ping your patches a dozen of times before someone with write access would review them and push.

                    And why do you think there's the problem with lack of reviewers? It's because for more reviewers you need more developers. But 1 and 2 alone set high threshold for new people, so you get almost no new developers and the same for reviewers.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X