On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:33:44PM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> >> Why would they use less memory?
> >
> > Since they don't link against a large library. Granted, that is only a
> > benefit
> > if all running programs link against libposix instead of glibc.
>
> What makes you think libposix will
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:54:35AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:33:44PM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
>
> > >> Why would they use less memory?
> > >
> > > Since they don't link against a large library. Granted, that is only a
> > > benefit
> > > if all running programs lin
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:41:43AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:24:40AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
> > > > applications I
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:24:40AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
> > > applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
> > > it will pr
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
>> > applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
>> > it will probably use le
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:28:24PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glibc, which must be present
> > on all systems. So it would be stupid for any package in Debian to link
> > against libposix instead of just using libc. Why do we want a library in
>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
> > applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
> > it will probably use less memory
>
> Why would they use less memory?
Since they
Guus Sliepen (24/06/2009):
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:17:14AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
>
> > Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If
> > not, why should it be included at this time?
>
> I agree that if the only thing that works at this moment is the simplest
>
Guus Sliepen writes:
>> Moreover, can libposix and libc coexist in the same address space?
>
> What address space are you talking about? There is also dietlibc and uClibc,
> who can coexist with glibc. But applications can only link against one of them
> at the time of course.
I suspect the conce
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:17:14AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
>
>> Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If
>> not, why should it be included at this time?
>
> I agree that if the only thing that works at this momen
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:02:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>> > * Package name : libposix
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glib
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:17:14AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If
> not, why should it be included at this time?
I agree that if the only thing that works at this moment is the simplest "Hello
world" program, that it should not b
Hi,
* Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [2009-06-24 08:21]:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar
>
> * Package name: libposix
> Version : 0
> Upstream Author : Henrique Almeida
> * URL : http://libposix.sourceforge.net/
> * License : Se
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:02:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar
> * Package name: libposix
Why?
This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glibc, which must be present
on all systems. So it would be stupid f
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:02:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> > * Package name: libposix
>
> Why?
>
> This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glibc, which must be present
> on all systems. So it would be s
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar
* Package name: libposix
I still have doubts that this package is undistributable with this name,
because of POSIX trademark (but DFSG allow us to change the package name).
Note: It is not the
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:02 +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar
>
> * Package name: libposix
> Version : 0
> Upstream Author : Henrique Almeida
> * URL : http://libposix.sourceforge.net/
> * Licen
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar
* Package name: libposix
Version : 0
Upstream Author : Henrique Almeida
* URL : http://libposix.sourceforge.net/
* License : See below
Programming Lang: C
Description : unifed implementati
18 matches
Mail list logo
