From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-58829-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B409D198005
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:44:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0138EE0720;
	Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:44:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ia0-f179.google.com (mail-ia0-f179.google.com [209.85.210.179])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19A03E06C0
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ia0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x24so3607187iak.24
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:44:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=be/sySwikWTpkUFyEKRj7DIH401qzY1a8lo7RW2mE3M=;
        b=MvfMmB0DLlNJWFRRF2TMqPyEQu+byZs01HKHuXigrM7nmz33vhxupWzZAhNcSMiSX8
         eLta5zW/TD8WbHxaI5F11uok/XcuvbJlCG1fObomt3UtoU9l/62nBbI7n3VKE8YG5ev5
         XPYPRHbfSZN8SJktwviM2qCGqc40BN1B+0J/8VbGQ+iqRhM08Qy/xqd5FzEUKrXPCUhk
         Jmy8fLP6KtwYWCan4Qj9e0KjkQX/EQiaCpd5QaWbgFzAA2cVwpmJFMfBRccllgX/wfN3
         WpvUwp5F91Q9AijZw4mSTZaYKgo5ayMA9H1W2kkS51YGBTIYVgaCwnsUX36EedAwG0bh
         0LrQ==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.219.228 with SMTP id pr4mr5552006igc.40.1361897071371;
 Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:44:31 -0800 (PST)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.21.98 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:44:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAr7Pr_ortMPegDfPWcLw8ZLZoDV-HJBB4-Z3e93y=1G0A6O-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <512CB9B8.9060308@gentoo.org>
	<CAAr7Pr_ortMPegDfPWcLw8ZLZoDV-HJBB4-Z3e93y=1G0A6O-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:44:31 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xdVyi42YW2KNqg0YOT7MVSQvgnY
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=uPcTVWuk2n8WFiHk1d0q3Bm+cf6f5tO3FNmwQy2MK6g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Evaluating a new malloc()
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: ddf35ba1-f327-4f94-b3ba-f825cba3b50a
X-Archives-Hash: 637db12d0037eea5c289941859faf5cd

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they
> should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't just do it in Gentoo.

Certainly I think it would be far more productive to talk to the glibc
maintainers first.

However, nothing prevents anybody from creating a Gentoo package with
an alternative glibc implementation, patchset, whatever, assuming they
are willing to maintain it.  It really is no different from having an
alternative udev implementation.  Gentoo is about choice.

Now, whether it ever becomes the /default/ choice is another matter
entirely.  Nobody can prevent people from experimenting - Gentoo
developers are permitted to waste their time if desired.  :)

Rich