Hi, On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 05:01:01PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote: > So I am considering a library that is capable of the same things as > the ioctls. Would that be a wise choice or is there any way to > overcome the problems I described? My choice would be a library that > should be used for console switching, although it will make us > incompatible.
If I understand you correctly we're going to be incompatible anyway (except if we do some dirty hacks, which I wouldn't suggest). So source code will need to be changed. With the library, the changes will be minimal and easy to implement (because there will be library calls for every ioctl call). If we make the library do the ioctl calls if compiled on other systems, the programs using it will still work on all platforms after the port. That seems the most elegant solution to me. Then again, I'd like a library for every other use of ioctl as well, as they are too low-level, and therefore potentially non-portable. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
