Hi!
A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
http://people.debian.org/~rmh/knetbsd/pub/
I got to port all the base system with very little effort, since my previous
patches for Glibc-based GNU/KFreeBSD already did most of the job. Xfree86 and
a bunch other key packa
Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You would be much better off just specifying what was missing from the
>> native libc so that it could be added -- that, at least, is a
>> tractable problem.
>
> I think in some viewpoints (certainly not mine), the problem may be that
> it's not glibc.
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > First we'll merge the patchset in upstream. Then we'll have problems for a
> > while, similarly to those the GNU/Hurd port has fixing Glibc every time it
> > breaks for them.
>
> I'd be more impressed with that analysis if the bug
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> If you mean that the NetBSD folks are going to abandon their libc,
> which is really nice to work with, I think you're mistaken. It is
> unlikely that they're ever going to do that. ("They" includes me,
> fyi.)
I'm not impressed
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > When NPTL is ported,
>
> I assume you mean the Netscape stuff?
No, the thread library in Glibc.
> > it'll be no difference. The "native" word is meaningless here.
>
> I see you h
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:48:23PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
>
> That last sentence doesn't make sense, Robert. If you do get NPTL
> running on NetBSD, you'll have to use the same NetBSD kernel interfaces
> as the native libc does.
I know, but we do the same for the rest of kernel interfaces a
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> If one wants Linux, there is Linux, and one doesn't need to do any
> work. If one wants to marry the advantages of NetBSD with the Debian
> tools, then getting rid of the interesting things about NetBSD won't
> achieve the desire
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:32:03PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > The goal is porting NPTL for both KFreeBSD and KNetBSD (K for 'kernel of').
> > As of now, temporary solutions are being used: linuxthreads and libpth,
> > respectively.
>
> Are you sure that's the right way to go? Porting NPTL lo
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:42:12PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> > If you had a list of functional deficiencies in the native libc,
> > though, it would probably be possible to re-implement them and fix
> > them in the native NetBSD
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:30:20PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > I'd be more impressed with that analysis if the bugs were in fact
>
> Time to wait, then.
Yes, that's what I've been doing. I've tried to work on glibc, and
pretty
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>> If you mean that the NetBSD folks are going to abandon their libc,
>> which is really nice to work with, I think you're mistaken. It is
>> unlikely that they're ever going to do that. ("
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I'm not impressed.
>
> Hey, you said that you would be able to avoid having to deal with
> maintaining the glibc stuff yourself because the "upstream" would do
> it for you. I do
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:29:37PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > Because GNU/K*BSD is stable and full-featured. I'll be able to migrate
> > myself in a matter of weeks.
>
> So someone fixed the bug in the DNS resolver? Without it "full-featured"
> is kind of hard to believe, since all kinds of
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:18:29PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> Also, I'd like to point out to you that when this started, none of the
> people involved had any real experience with porting Debian. So that
> learning curve, plus RL demands on our time, had a lot to do with the
> time it took to a
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I'm not impressed.
>>
>> Hey, you said that you would be able to avoid having to deal with
>> maintaining the glibc stuff yourself because the "upstream" would do
>> it for you. I doubt that the FSF people will do it, and I doubt that
>> we (NetBSD)
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:56:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >
> > If one wants Linux, there is Linux, and one doesn't need to do any
> > work. If one wants to marry the advantages of NetBSD with the Debian
> > tools, then gett
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:30:55AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:18:29PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > Also, I'd like to point out to you that when this started, none of the
> > people involved had any real experience with porting Debian. So that
> > learning curve, pl
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> > As I said, though, it is likely that the NetBSD folks would happily
> > add needed stuff from glibc to the netbsd libc. I mean, who wants to
> > have a libc that won
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:00:06PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >
> > Porting to a Glibc-based from another is kids play.
> >
> > You aren't listening. The threads stuff is not kids play.
> > [...]
>
> The threads stuff is not a
> > > We fixed pam to run on native libc a long time ago. It wasn't that bad,
> > > once I got libshadow written. And last I knew you didn't have an X
> > > server package, which I had on the native libc a long time ago.
> >
> > I was referring to the GNU/NetBSD port. See bug #201683 for example,
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
> some folks like Debian support, but quite a number -- and in the
> course of making them all work we routinely find that we have to fix
> things in NetBSD. Fo
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:24:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >
> > We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
> > some folks like Debian support, but quite a number -- and in the
> > course of making them
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:26:33PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > It isn't the FSF who maintains Glibc.
>
> Whatever. The point is the maintainers won't do the work for you, so
> the "upstream" comment doesn't hold much water.
The primary targ
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:12:08PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > Please avoid the "third party" euphemism. If you want to run non-free
> > software
> > on a Glibc-based system, you can use the NetBSD libc since it's no techni
Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > (btw, fixing the X server is on my todo)
>>
>> All I have to say about the X server, as the person who generated most
>> of the patches, is that they're actually very straightforward, if rather
>> invasive. I simply had to go through each config opt
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That's not what "third party" means. "Third party" means stuff not
>> provided by The NetBSD Foundation in our releases. The BSD world
>> doesn't work quite the way the Linux world does in this regard. We
>> maintain both a kernel and a tightly integrat
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I'd dearly love to see a bit more de-coupling of NetBSD kernel and
> libc (so that they don't have to be in quite such lockstep, though I'm more
> worried about the process utilities that must be *exact* matches), I don't
> claim that managing it woul
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:22:53PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > All I have to say about the X server, as the person who generated most
> > of the patches, is that they're actually very straightforward, if rather
> > invasive. I simply had to go through each config option and decide whether
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> I haven't been following too closely. Could someone explain what the
> issue is? Obviously XFree works fine on NetBSD -- I'm using it at this
> very moment. Given that it works fine on NetBSD, what's the issue?
Joel will give yo
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:52:43AM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >
> > This is Debian, and we have around 1 packages here. Why do we have to
> > support installing packages from the NetBSD pkgsrc archive?
>
> Are you deliberately misreading me? I wasn't saying anything about you
> supporting
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:03:11AM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
>
> BTW, NetBSD gets a lot out of the tight integration of the libraries
> and kernel. What we get is completely seamless integration -- and that
> buys us quite a bit.
>
> In general, I can see why one would want to combine the
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:55:39PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:56:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > It's about the GNU libc and userland, which are the standard in Debian and
> > I see no reason to replace them.
>
> For the record, probably 70% of the email that I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 07:58 am, Robert Millan wrote:
> No, we combine the advantages of Debian, GNU, and the kernel of NetBSD.
>
> The superiority of GNU userland repect to NetBSD's is an issue too, and you
> seem to be ignoring it.
I'm sorry,
> "Perry" == Perry E Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perry> In general, I can see why one would want to combine the advantages of
Perry> Debian and NetBSD, but I can't see why one would want to produce
Perry> something less functional than either.
"Less functional" is apparently not the
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Please avoid the "third party" euphemism. If you want to run non-free software
> on a Glibc-based system, you can use the NetBSD libc since it's no technical
> problem to provide it as alternative (ala Linux libc5)
"Third party" inc
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:19:41PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > Please avoid the "third party" euphemism. If you want to run non-free
> > software
> > on a Glibc-based system, you can use the NetBSD libc since it's no technic
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > (btw, fixing the X server is on my todo)
> >>
> >> All I have to say about the X server, as the person who generated most
> >> of the patches, is that they're actually very stra
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:03:11AM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While I'd dearly love to see a bit more de-coupling of NetBSD kernel and
> > libc (so that they don't have to be in quite such lockstep, though I'm more
> > worried about the process ut
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In general, I can see why one would want to combine the advantages of
>> Debian and NetBSD, but I can't see why one would want to produce
>> something less functional than either. I think if you replace too much
>> of NetBSD in doing what you're trying
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I haven't been following too closely. Could someone explain what the
>> issue is? Obviously XFree works fine on NetBSD -- I'm using it at this
>> very moment. Given that it works fine on NetBSD, what's the issue?
>
> Crucial issues mostly amounted to diffe
No, we combine the advantages of Debian, GNU, and the kernel of NetBSD.
The superiority of GNU userland repect to NetBSD's is an issue too, and you
seem to be ignoring it.
no, it's more that we (at least perry and i, and most of the netbsd
developers) _don't think GNU userland is
Hi Nathan;
> Unfortunately, I haven't had much luck interesting anyone in merging it.
> Possibly because of compatibility issues, and possibly because the specs
> for both of those things are kind of icky. Then again, it might simply
> have had to do with the development cycle for FreeBSD.
Ad
Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 02.12.03 19:40:27:
> Absolutely not. One of the reasons I want to use FreeBSD is because
> Linux is too unstable for me. I've begun to conclude that the glibc port
That's also my impression (and the reason why i'm getting back again to
NetBSD on old
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:21:04PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I haven't been following too closely. Could someone explain what the
> >> issue is? Obviously XFree works fine on NetBSD -- I'm using it at this
> >> very moment. Given that it works f
Dear debian-bsd folk,
[disclaimer: I am just a random Debian developer, I don't use nor plan
to use FreeBSD or NetBSD]
For Debian to target for release a new port, the port has to match
the release minima which are:
1) all base package
2) 90% of all packages build
3) a working installer
4) suitab
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:16:04AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear debian-bsd folk,
>
> [disclaimer: I am just a random Debian developer, I don't use nor plan
> to use FreeBSD or NetBSD]
>
> For Debian to target for release a new port, the port has to match
> the release minima which are:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:16:04AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Debian developers are mostly GNU/Linux users and are likely to use
> GNU specific features, and not ready to stop this usage for a port
> that have yet to happen.
The vast majority of code shipped by Debian is not Debian-specifi
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> party". Our pkgsrc infrastructure exists to make it easy to compile
> third party software, but we do not claim that Emacs and /bin/ls are
> supported the same way.
>
> We've got about 4500 packages in pkgsrc -- a fraction of the number
> some folks lik
> "Perry" == Perry E Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perry> Why do you want NetBSD's kernel? You obviously believe everything that
Perry> NetBSD has done is fecal, so what would the point of contaminating the
Perry> "superior" GNU userland with a crappy NetBSD kernel?
Done with the strawma
This may be possible under NetBSD as well (especially with a generous
helping of COMPAT option enabling), but given the number of dire warnings
the manuals all bear about building things in the correct order, I'm not
willing to trust that it's flexible enough to start doing interest
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:08:33AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> > party". Our pkgsrc infrastructure exists to make it easy to compile
> > third party software, but we do not claim that Emacs and /bin/ls are
> > supported the same way.
> >
> > We've
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:48:34PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
>This may be possible under NetBSD as well (especially with a generous
>helping of COMPAT option enabling), but given the number of dire warnings
>the manuals all bear about building things in the correct order, I'm no
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 09:30:09AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > > Another thing that is interesting is that most of pkgsrc is usable on
> > > non-NetBSD systems. Many admins use it to have a consistent third-party
> > > software installation method und
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote:
> $ cd /var/lib/apt/lists
> $ grep "^Package:" http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_*_Sources |
> sort | uniq | wc -l
> 8030
Thanks for the information.
> > Another thing that is interesting is that most of pkgsrc is usable on
> > non-NetBSD systems. Many admins
"Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
>> party". Our pkgsrc infrastructure exists to make it easy to compile
>> third party software, but we do not claim that Emacs and /bin/ls are
>> supported the same way.
>>
>> We've got about 4500 packages
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:21:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I haven't been following too closely. Could someone explain what the
> >> issue is? Obviously XFree works fine on NetBSD -- I'm using it at this
> >> very moment. Given that it works fi
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:16:00PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Why do you want NetBSD's kernel? You obviously believe everything that
> NetBSD has done is fecal, so what would the point of contaminating the
> "superior" GNU userland with a crappy NetBSD kernel?
Well I don't recall using sca
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:16:04AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So your best bet to get your port released is to provide an environment
> as similar as the GNU/Linux so that most packages will build out of
> the box. Using glibc and GNU tools is a big step in this direction.
Fully agreed.
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:19:41PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:52:01AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > Please avoid the "third party" euphemism. If you want to run non-free
> > software
> > on a Glibc-based system, you can use the NetBSD libc since it's no technic
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Michael Graff wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 02 December 2003 07:58 am, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > No, we combine the advantages of Debian, GNU, and the kernel of NetBSD.
> >
> > The superiority of GNU userland rep
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:16:35PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> The NetBSD/native port has been stalled for some time, because I ran into
> core, required-to-build-lots-of-things applications (tcl8.4, IIRC, in
> particular) that *don't work* with GNU pth. Period. Neither version 1.x or
> 2.x.
I'm
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:00PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:16:35PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > The NetBSD/native port has been stalled for some time, because I ran into
> > core, required-to-build-lots-of-things applications (tcl8.4, IIRC, in
> > particular) t
(Sorry for the lateness of this reply, I haven't been checking -bsd
very regularly in recent days. It's a long email, which is common for
me, but I do cover a lot of ground in it.)
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:56:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> This is not about the Debian tools, you can have Deb
> "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jimmy> I can't find the exact messages for some of these examples of their
Jimmy> experience, but one post mentioned that the poster had implemented
Jimmy> applications using hundreds or thousands of threads;
How can this be consider
> "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jimmy> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
>> > "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Jimmy> I can't find the exact messages for some of these examples of their
Jimmy> experience, but
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> > "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jimmy> I can't find the exact messages for some of these examples of their
> Jimmy> experience, but one post mentioned that the poster had implemented
> Jimmy> applic
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:41:39PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> Jimmy> I believe the poster was
> Jimmy> offering it to Robert as a way to test his eventual port of a threads
> Jimmy> library to glibc-on-BSD to see if it performs well and is thread-safe
> Jimmy> for thread-intensive applications
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 09:53:38AM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
>
> In any case, I hope I did indicate that I have less experience than many
> list posters with threads (although I hope to gain at least a bit more
> when I take an operating systems course at my uni as soon as next fall).
> If any
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:41:39PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> > "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jimmy> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >> > "Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> Jimmy> I can't find
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:54:01AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > In any case, I hope I did indicate that I have less experience than many
> > list posters with threads (although I hope to gain at least a bit more
> > when I take an operating systems course at my uni as soon as next fall).
> > If any
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:19:39AM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:54:01AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > In any case, I hope I did indicate that I have less experience than many
> > > list posters with threads (although I hope to gain at least a bit more
> > > when I tak
A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
so... can someone explain what the plan is for deb/netbsd wrt libc?
ie, will there be 2 systems one that is compatible with netbsd (ie
that people can upgrade to, run normal netbsd apps, etc) and one that
isn't (ie, glib
[ Please keep the CC ]
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
>A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
>
> so... can someone explain what the plan is for deb/netbsd wrt libc?
>
> ie, will there be 2 systems one that is compatible wit
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
>
>
> so... can someone explain what the plan is for deb/netbsd wrt libc?
>
> ie, will there be 2 systems one that is compatible with netbsd (ie
> that people c
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
>
>A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
>
>
> so... can someone explain what the plan is for deb/netbsd wrt libc?
>
> ie, will there be 2 systems one that is compatible with netbsd (ie
> that
Hello,
>
> Hi!
>
> A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~rmh/knetbsd/pub/
>
> I got to port all the base system with very little effort, since my previous
> patches for Glibc-based GNU/KFreeBSD already did most of the job. Xfree86 a
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:45:15PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD) port
> of Glibc?
On the FreeBSD port, it uses linuxthreads. It isn't going to be good
enough long term.
The NetBSD port of glibc will probably do the same, at least ini
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 01:40:12PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:45:15PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> > Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD) port
> > of Glibc?
>
> On the FreeBSD port, it uses linuxthreads. It isn't going to be good
> enough
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD) port
>> > of Glibc?
>>
>> On the FreeBSD port, it uses linuxthreads. It isn't going to be good
>> enough long term.
>>
>> The NetBSD port of glibc will probably do the same, at least init
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD) port
> >> > of Glibc?
> >>
> >> On the FreeBSD port, it uses linuxthreads. It isn't going to be good
> >> enough long
Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
>> native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn impressive. I'd say that not
>> using the native threads would be a tremendous waste...
>
> For my part, I'm of the opinion that threads
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
> native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn impressive. I'd say that not
> using the native threads would be a tremendous waste...
When NPTL is ported, it'll
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:45:15PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > A usable Debian GNU/KNetBSD system based on Glibc is now available:
> >
> > http://people.debian.org/~rmh/knetbsd/pub/
> >
> > I got to port all the base system with very little effort, since my prev
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
> scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
> problems in the library forever.
First we'll merge the patchset in upstream. Then we'll have p
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
> > scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
> > problems in the librar
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>> Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
>> native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn impressive. I'd say that not
>> using the native threads would be a tre
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>> IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
>> scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
>> problems in the library forever.
>
> First we'll m
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Please, how is threading implemented in the NetBSD (and FreeBSD)
> > port of Glibc?
>
> The goal is porting NPTL for both KFreeBSD and KNetBSD (K for 'kernel of').
> As of now, temporary solutions are being used: linuxthreads and l
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:56:04PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >> Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
> >> native threads on NetBSD are pretty d
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >> IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
> >> scheduler activations is likely prohibit
90 matches
Mail list logo
