>libc updates>99% of all packages need an updatefucking unbelievablewhy is libc coded by spergs with no practical experience/ gnome developers ?MSVCRT/UCRT superiori want MSVCRT/UCRT replacing libc NOW.
>>106768364>99% of all packages need an updateIs this the power of flatpaks?
>>106768364Ask Microsoft to license it as mit at least.
>>106768364not libc but the way linux uses that shit like it's still 1970
>>106768378>Is this the power of flatpaks?No contrary flatpaks are supposed to fix it and they do, native packaging has this issue, but no one is going to adopt flatpaks or any universal packaging format so the hope is for a better C library.
>>106768389>not libc but the way linux uses that shit like it's still 1970Bullshit, libc is the number 1 biggest problem and number 2 is adopting unix standards and not getting rid of them since a good chuck of it is outdated.
>>106768409why libc if msvcr has versions too but windows handle them properly
>>106768364Never seen that on Gentoo. Is this behavior typical for binary-based distros?
>>106768392falseall flatpaks need an update if libc is updatedtraditional distros, you only have to update libc and everything benefits automaticallyevery flatpak has its own libc. so every flatpak needs to be updated to get it
