From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 13 06:12:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA00439 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 06:12:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from expo.x.org (expo.x.org [198.112.45.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA00432 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 06:12:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from exalt.x.org by expo.x.org id AA11903; Wed, 13 Mar 96 09:11:38 -0500 Received: from localhost by exalt.x.org id OAA21221; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:11:38 GMT Message-Id: <199603131411.OAA21221@exalt.x.org> To: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: new malloc/libc... In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Mar 1996 12:34:51 EDT. <22076.826720491@critter.tfs.com> Organization: X Consortium Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:11:37 EDT From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > There was a spattering of discussion about the new malloc existing in > > -current, I seem to have lost track of it in the noise; did anybody > > followup on the suggestion of putting a compiled libc on the ftp site? > > Or are we limited to simply compiling it ourselves? > > I will probably make another stab at convincing the gang that "phkmalloc" > should be put in 2.1, ... I think it would be an extremely bad idea to re-release 2.1 for any reason. If you want to put the new malloc in an officially released version before 2.2, then call it 2.1.1 or 2.1.phk or something, but don't start rewriting history. As an alternative, why not release a package that replaces the libc with a libc that has phkmalloc? That way people who want it can get it and it's an explicit step that can be undone if necessary. FreeBSD packages can be backed out, can't they? >... but last time I tried there were some concerns about > all the broken code it exposed :-) Broken code is broken code. That's why you have ports, right? Since gnumalloc is similar in some respects to phkmalloc, I would tend to believe that much of the broken software is being fixed by/for the Linux crowd, and by the time 2.2 is officially released the latest- and-greatest versions of most software should be less broken than they are now. Wishful thinking perhaps?!? -- Kaleb KEITHLEY