On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> i understood him this way: glibcs *portability* is large, since
> it is not only portabel over several archs but also over several
> kernels.
>
> bsds libc is less portable (only accross different archs) so its
> portability is smaller.
At a
Momchil Velikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 20.01.03 15:20:56:
>
> > "Atifa" == Atifa Kheel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Atifa> e)Other Streams(like string streams,Obstack streams,etc)
> Atifa> glibc: Supported
> Atifa> BSD libc: Not Supported.
>
Why is it important for d
> "Michael" == Michael Ritzert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Why is it important for debian BSD to sum up the
Michael> differences in BSD libc and glibc?
Maybe to justify choosing one or another ?
Michael> - the dominance of glibc-based linux has forced IBM and
Michael
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:37:59PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> Increasingly, I wonder about going back to the native libc. and
> continuing to develop things like utmpx or libshadow. Keeping glibc
> working and in sync with the kernel looks like a full-time job, and I
> cannot do it.
Yay! That
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:37:59PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
>
> I've had to put the work I was doing on hold. Bruno Haible doesn't seem
> to have done much further with merging into glibc. There are
> substantial problems with /usr/include. Major work is needed to get
> enough of the requir
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>btw, i heard some time ago that the FreeBSD people were considering a
>Glibc migration.
Hahahaha. You heard wrong.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
FAIR ISLE: CYCLONIC BECOMING NORTHEASTERLY 6 TO GALE 8. RAIN. MODERATE OR
GOO
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:52:31PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Please tar it up and put it in a public place, then more people can help.
I'll do that when I can... Right now, the system I was developing on
isn't even powered up. :(
> btw, i heard some time ago that the FreeBSD people were consi
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:50:46AM +0100, Michael Ritzert wrote:
> Momchil Velikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 20.01.03 15:20:56:
> >
> > > "Atifa" == Atifa Kheel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Atifa> e)Other Streams(like string streams,Obstack streams,etc)
> > Atifa> glibc: S
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:34:45PM +0300, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:37:59PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
>
> > Increasingly, I wonder about going back to the native libc. and
> > continuing to develop things like utmpx or libshadow. Keeping glibc
> > working and in sync
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:42:55AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > So, coming back to the main topic: how did the NetBSD/intel people
> > overcome these difficulties caused by bsd libc/glibc?
>
> Most of the difficulties are non-portable code (such as code that uses GNU
> extensions *without* wrappin
10 matches
Mail list logo