> Oh, of course; those aren't system-specific libraries though. It's > the idea of splitting libc into different system specific libraries > that I think is a mistake.
Noone suggested that. > I have no objection to a new generically named library for specific > sets of tasks. As I said, libutil might be fine for the uptime thing. > (Of course five of the libraries in your list are all generated from > the libc source. :) I'm lazy. > Except I think it's a mistake to label those "linux-specific". The > danger of that is that as soon as it gets implemented on some other > system, it ceases to be Linux specific. Like I already said three times, something that can conceivably be generic belongs in a generic place. > Moreover, there is nothing Hurd-specific about fetch_boot_time. It > should be implementable on any system, and is a reasonable entirely > generic function. That's why I made this distinction at the beginning. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
