glibc policy chage?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 06:11 -0500, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> 2012/2/6 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4 at gmail.com>:
> > I noticed that F17 is based on the latest stable glibc realease.
> > Previously development Fedora version was based on development glibc.
> > Was there a change of some Fedora glibc policy? If it is no
> > coincidence, but the new policy - many thanks for the change :)
> 
> Yes, we've worked with the glibc maintainers in Fedora to change the
> way that glibc packages are produced.  Previously, each new updated
> glibc package would sync in most (if not all) of the latest changes
> from development, which made it difficult to release.  For example, in
> the F16 development cycle, we had several instances of bug-fix
> releases for glibc causing further regressions.
> 
> In the new scheme, glibc packages will be based on stable releases,
> with bug-fixes back-ported as necessary.  I'll throw out a huge thank
> you to Jeff Law for being willing to step up and take over maintenance
> of the glibc packages in Fedora, and for building those packages in a
> less chaotic way than was previously done.


I'd like to second that. Glibc forms the basic foundation of Fedora, and
it's nice to know that we'll have fewer earthquakes post-Alpha. Thanks
very much Jeff!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120206/f872cf48/attachment.sig>