matthew green wrote:
Think you could port BSD libc to Linux without making a mess?
considering that we (netbsd) basically have a source-compat layer
for netbsd software on linux, this actually is a whole lot simplier
and easier than you may otherwise think.
Could be. I know my way around Fr
Think you could port BSD libc to Linux without making a mess?
considering that we (netbsd) basically have a source-compat layer
for netbsd software on linux, this actually is a whole lot simplier
and easier than you may otherwise think.
The BSD libc is smaller for about the same reas
Ian Jackson wrote:
This whole conversation seems baffling to me. Have any of the people
posting opinions actually looked at the source code of the two libcs ?
I have. I've done some hacking on both the FreeBSD libc and glibc.
glibc is a complex horror [1]; the BSD libc is a fairly nice and clean
i
This whole conversation seems baffling to me. Have any of the people
posting opinions actually looked at the source code of the two libcs ?
glibc is a complex horror [1]; the BSD libc is a fairly nice and clean
implementation. It seems to me that there is little doubt which libc
we would prefer
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:24:48AM +0200, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
>
> > This may boil down further to a
> > question of whether it is better to make a small number of large changes
> > to a small amount of code, or a large number of small changes to a lot
> > of code, spread over a lot of so
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:19:11AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> These are opinions, not proven facts.
>
> It is not yet entirely clear what the whole situation with glibc will
> be. I am working with it on FreeBSD, but have by no means decided for or
> against it yet. I am still assessing it.
Nathan Hawkins wrote:
[snip]
How much work is it to make the BSD sources work with glibc, and glibc
work well with them, and is it actually less work than patching Debian
packages to run with the BSD libc? This may boil down further to a
Don't forget, there are over 7000 ports in the FreeBSD po
These are opinions, not proven facts.
It is not yet entirely clear what the whole situation with glibc will
be. I am working with it on FreeBSD, but have by no means decided for or
against it yet. I am still assessing it. This is what I have found so far:
Pros
* Makes a dramatic difference in th
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:28:55AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Elie Rosenblum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020724 02:13]:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:58:00AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > That's the idea...for anything not part of the 'base' distribution
> > (as defined by whatever platform
* Elie Rosenblum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020724 02:13]:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:58:00AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> That's the idea...for anything not part of the 'base' distribution
> (as defined by whatever platform you're building for), we should
> be using the standard debian source pack
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:58:00AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Michael Graff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020724 01:28]:
> > IMHO, this is the wrong way to look at things. If packages are so
> > linux (and glibc is linux slanted, IMHO) they should be fixed to be
> > more unix, not making the unix w
* Michael Graff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020724 01:28]:
> IMHO, this is the wrong way to look at things. If packages are so
> linux (and glibc is linux slanted, IMHO) they should be fixed to be
> more unix, not making the unix world more linux.
The debian packages would need work to build cleanly on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian has 9000 packages now, and all them are proven to build with the
> kernel Linux and the GNU libc. Some are also proven to work with the GNU
> Hurd and the GNU libc. Very few are proven to work with th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
matthew green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> perhaps initially netbsd libc - it seems to me to be much more likely
> to work 100% (or close to) with the kernel. after a lot of testing
> you might want glibc for default (but i'd always hope otherwise :
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 12:50:43PM -0700, Michael Goetze wrote:
>
> > I have a sufficiently working glibc that I can build binutils and gcc
> > against it and then use them to rebuild a working glibc, but it'll need
> > some work yet before it's even vaguely production ready. The general
> > opini
> I have a sufficiently working glibc that I can build binutils and gcc
> against it and then use them to rebuild a working glibc, but it'll need
> some work yet before it's even vaguely production ready. The general
> opinion at Debconf seemed to be that going with glibc was preferable to
> using
Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The problem I'm having is that I can't get freebsd sources to build on
>top of glibc. The library and utility sources that I need seem to be
>wanting a lot of stuff that simply isn't in the glibc headers.
It would be nice if some of the bloat in glibc
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I have a sufficiently working glibc that I can build binutils and gcc
> against it and then use them to rebuild a working glibc, but it'll
> need some work yet before it's even vaguely production ready. The
> general opinion at Debconf seemed to be that going with glibc was
> can't we have both?
There's certainly no problem shipping both - what I was thinking about
more is which do we link everything against?
i know of at least one bug in glibc that wasn't a candidate for being
fixed (last i heard.) it's nfs_readdir() depends on an opaque cookie
be
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:52:23AM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> can't we have both?
There's certainly no problem shipping both - what I was thinking about
more is which do we link everything against?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
I have a sufficiently working glibc that I can build binutils and gcc
against it and then use them to rebuild a working glibc, but it'll need
some work yet before it's even vaguely production ready. The general
opinion at Debconf seemed to be that going with glibc was preferable to
I have a sufficiently working glibc that I can build binutils and gcc
against it and then use them to rebuild a working glibc, but it'll need
some work yet before it's even vaguely production ready. The general
opinion at Debconf seemed to be that going with glibc was preferable to
using BSD libc -
22 matches
Mail list logo
