On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:58:17AM +0100, Oystein Viggen wrote: > * [Jeroen Dekkers] > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 09:59:14PM +0100, Farid Hajji wrote: > >> All in all, binary compatibility is a nice thing to have. > > > > If it's only used for running non-free software I disagree. > > I can see no other reason. As you said, if it's free, we just recompile > it. Then we can remove PATH_MAX and MAXHOSTNAMELEN dependencies, too. > > > The only > > really reason I see is that you can have the same Debian packages for > > GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux, which would same some few GBs in the > > archive. For this the ABI has to be completely the same which still > > has some issues. > > For complete binary compatibility, I should think you also need complete > feature compatibility. This means either enhancing Linux to support > things like translators, dumbing down the Hurd, or providing fake stubs > in the Linux libc. None of these are very likely.
Why? POSIX programs use the glibc ABI, which is almost the same on GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. Programs could use the proc filesystem and would have dependency on procfs-linux-2.4 then. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
msg03515/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
