>> I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
>> programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
>> though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead.
> There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common
> routines l
>> I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
>> programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
>> though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead.
> There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common
> routines
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Alexander Voropay wrote:
> glibc has better POSIX locale and I18N / L10N support :
> - localedef(1) and locale(1) utilities
> - nl_langinfo(3) XPG-4 function
> - gettext built-in into glibc
Again this is just a handful of functions, that IMO are best not put into
libc. Take
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Alexander Voropay wrote:
> glibc has better POSIX locale and I18N / L10N support :
> - localedef(1) and locale(1) utilities
> - nl_langinfo(3) XPG-4 function
> - gettext built-in into glibc
Again this is just a handful of functions, that IMO are best not put into
libc. Tak
>> Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in
>> opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to
>> avoid duplicate work. Thanks.)
>
>Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
>be an easier option than porting *shud
>> Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in
>> opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to
>> avoid duplicate work. Thanks.)
>
>Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
>be an easier option than porting *shu
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
> > be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc?
>
> I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux)
> easier. And, as a side note, I think both Fr
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
> > be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc?
>
> I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux)
> easier. And, as a side note, I think both F
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <19990719080712.a15...@holly.dyndns.org> Chris Costello writes:
> : getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
>
> Not everyone hates them...
Sure, I don't hate them either... until I try and port something that
depends on t
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
>
>> Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ
>> and which one is "better". :-)
>
> I'd rather hurt myself severely.
Of course. That's a prerequisite for becoming a committer. :-)
John
---
John Polstr
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
> In article ,
> Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> >
> [GNU getopt]
> > If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc.
>
> Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in
> two different places -- binutils and gdb).
In article ,
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
>
[GNU getopt]
> If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc.
Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in
two different places -- binutils and gdb). It might be better just
to install libiberty from one of
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message
> Per Lundberg writes:
> : I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
> : programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
> : though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right a
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
> > is a bug.
>
> I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
> programs. Perhaps it should have been put i
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chris Costello writes:
> : getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
>
> Not everyone hates them...
Sure, I don't hate them either... until I try and port something that
depends on them. Then I get ann
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
>
>> Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ
>> and which one is "better". :-)
>
> I'd rather hurt myself severely.
Of course. That's a prerequisite for becoming a committer. :-)
John
---
John Polst
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Brian F. Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> [GNU getopt]
> > If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc.
>
> Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in
> two
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Brian F. Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[GNU getopt]
> If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc.
Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in
two different places -- binutils and gdb). It might be better
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Per
>Lundberg writes:
> : I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
> : programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
> : though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
> > is a bug.
>
> I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
> programs. Perhaps it should have been put
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common
> routines like the long getopt...
Yeah, I was thinking about something like that.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the me
In message <19990719080712.a15...@holly.dyndns.org> Chris Costello writes:
: getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
Not everyone hates them...
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In message Per
Lundberg writes:
: I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
: programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
: though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead.
There has been talking of having a libgnu.a
> (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine).
FreeBSD does have a real, 100% posix compatible getopt. Maybe you are
missing one of the numerous, non-standard Linux extentions? Gnu's
getopt can be found in about a dozen different places in the FreeBSD
tree. cvs, tar, etc.
Warner
T
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common
> routines like the long getopt...
Yeah, I was thinking about something like that.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the messa
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chris Costello writes:
: getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
Not everyone hates them...
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Per
Lundberg writes:
: I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
: programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
: though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead.
There has been talking o
> (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine).
FreeBSD does have a real, 100% posix compatible getopt. Maybe you are
missing one of the numerous, non-standard Linux extentions? Gnu's
getopt can be found in about a dozen different places in the FreeBSD
tree. cvs, tar, etc.
Warner
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Chris Costello wrote:
> >
> >What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard
> > getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
>
> Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who
> doesn't hate it.
Good
Chris Costello wrote:
>
>What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard
> getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who
doesn't hate it.
--
Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS)
d...@newsguy.com
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote:
> How about gnugetopt? FreeBSD already has a port, devel/libgnugetopt,
> that does this. :)
Great. I'll check this out. Thanks.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
>What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard
> getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
Nothing. But I don't think they're as bad as you say, especially when
you're new to a program and don't know the short options ye
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
# On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
#
# > It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
# > is a bug.
#
# I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
# programs. Perhaps it should have been put i
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
> > is a bug.
>
> I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
> programs. Perhaps it should have been put i
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Chris Costello wrote:
> >
> >What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard
> > getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
>
> Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who
> doesn't hate it.
Good
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
> is a bug.
I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
though. Actually, I'd bette
Chris Costello wrote:
>
>What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard
> getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who
doesn't hate it.
--
Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote:
> How about gnugetopt? FreeBSD already has a port, devel/libgnugetopt,
> that does this. :)
Great. I'll check this out. Thanks.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
>What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard
> getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates?
Nothing. But I don't think they're as bad as you say, especially when
you're new to a program and don't know the short options y
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
# On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
#
# > It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
# > is a bug.
#
# I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
# programs. Perhaps it should have been put
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
> > is a bug.
>
> I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
> programs. Perhaps it should have been put
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
> is a bug.
I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of
programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc,
though. Actually, I'd bett
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> You think so?
Yes.
> I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for FreeBSD
> (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine).
*sigh*
It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
is a bug. AFAIK *ONLY*
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier.
You think so? I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for
FreeBSD (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine).
> c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc.
What bugs have you found
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux)
> easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linux would benefit
> of having compatible libc:s.
I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier. 99% of the porting
issu
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
> be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc?
I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux)
easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linu
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> You think so?
Yes.
> I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for FreeBSD
> (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine).
*sigh*
It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine
is a bug. AFAIK *ONLY
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier.
You think so? I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for
FreeBSD (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine).
> c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc.
What bugs have you found
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux)
> easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linux would benefit
> of having compatible libc:s.
I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier. 99% of the porting
iss
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
> be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc?
I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux)
easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Lin
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in
> opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to
> avoid duplicate work. Thanks.)
Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
be
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in
> opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to
> avoid duplicate work. Thanks.)
Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might
b
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in
> opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to
> avoid duplicate work. Thanks.)
Not that I know of, but what's the point?
--
|Chris Costello
|Programmi
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote:
> Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in
> opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to
> avoid duplicate work. Thanks.)
Not that I know of, but what's the point?
--
|Chris Costello <[EMAIL PR
54 matches
Mail list logo
