Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-21 Thread David Brownlee
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

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-21 Thread Michael Ritzert
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

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-21 Thread Momchil Velikov
> "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

Re: Glibc-based GNU/FreeBSD

2003-01-21 Thread Wartan Hachaturow
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

Re: Glibc-based GNU/FreeBSD

2003-01-21 Thread Robert Millan
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

Re: Glibc-based GNU/FreeBSD

2003-01-21 Thread Tony Finch
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

Re: Glibc-based GNU/FreeBSD

2003-01-21 Thread Nathan Hawkins
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

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-21 Thread Joel Baker
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

Re: Glibc-based GNU/FreeBSD

2003-01-21 Thread Nathan Hawkins
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

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-21 Thread Nathan Hawkins
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