On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:50:17PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (By the way, I thought kfreebsd and hurd supported openat fine already.
> It's even part of POSIX. And %m is handled by glibc, not the kernel,
> so not a problem for our ports.)
I know the FreeBSD kernel has supported openat(2) si
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> No, because that's not the case of systemd's core. From what I've seen,
> most of the non-portable code in systemd's core is merely there for
> convenience. For example, the %m printf descriptor is used extensively,
> which is just shorthand for strerror. Similarly,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> It's not a simple portability problem, systemd relies on very complex
>> Linux-specific stuff.
>
> Well, having looked at the code, yes and no.
>
> Yes, because systemd recodes the whole startup process in C.
> Translating a lot of dist
> It's not a simple portability problem, systemd relies on very complex
> Linux-specific stuff.
Well, having looked at the code, yes and no.
Yes, because systemd recodes the whole startup process in C.
Translating a lot of distritibution-specific shell code into C is not
going to be portable:
4 matches
Mail list logo
