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.)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
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.)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
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?
--
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
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
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 th
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 ha
s a bug. AFAIK *ONLY* glibc has the long-getopt crap, and if that's the
only thing you're running into, it should be easy enough to rip out the
long getopt code, and add a few proper defines and have the standard libc
coexist peacefully with the GNU getopt.
> > c.) dependencies on bugs
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, 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, 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, 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, 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
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, 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
> (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
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
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
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
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:
> 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
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, 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
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, 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
> 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. A
>> 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
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 p
>> 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 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 poi
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
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
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 th
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
g. AFAIK *ONLY* glibc has the long-getopt crap, and if that's the
only thing you're running into, it should be easy enough to rip out the
long getopt code, and add a few proper defines and have the standard libc
coexist peacefully with the GNU getopt.
> > c.) dependencies on bugs
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
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, 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, 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, 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
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, 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
> (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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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, 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).
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, 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
> 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. A
>> 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
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 p
>> 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
milar to that produced by
.Xr date 1 ) .
+.It Cm %-*
+GLIBC extensions. Do not do padding when making output.
.It Cm %%
is replaced by
.Ql % .
Index: strftime.c
===
RCS file: /home/fcvs/src/lib/libc/stdtime/strftime.c,v
retriev
D: src/lib/libc/stdtime/strftime.3,v 1.34 2004/07/02 23:52:12 ru Exp $
> .\"
> -.Dd January 4, 2003
> +.Dd October 17, 2004
> .Dt STRFTIME 3
> .Os
> .Sh NAME
> @@ -216,6 +216,8 @@
> is replaced by national representation of the date and time
> (the format is
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 05:43:53PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 01:23:02AM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> > Hi, folks,
> >
> > It turns out that the GNU extension '-' in their strftime(3) implementation
> > is somewhat popular in several applications. The patch in the last part
mulate implementation for it.
>
[snip]
> > @@ -216,6 +216,8 @@
> > is replaced by national representation of the date and time
> > (the format is similar to that produced by
> > .Xr date 1 ) .
> > +.It Cm %-*
> > +GLIBC extensions. Do not do padding when mak
Hello,
[please Cc: to me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks]
are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
or medium future? Linux moved also from it's own libc5 to glibc (=libc6)
some time ago and it may be useful to do the same in FreeBSD t
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Farid Hajji wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [please Cc: to me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks]
>
> are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
> or medium future?
I think I can safely say:
"No."
Kris
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Farid Hajji wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > [please Cc: to me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks]
> >
> > are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the
>[please Cc: to me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks]
>
>are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
>or medium future? Linux moved also from it's own libc5 to glibc (=libc6)
>some time ago and it may be useful to do the same i
* Farid Hajji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000825 21:03] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [please Cc: to me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks]
>
> are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
> or medium future? Linux moved also from it's
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Farid Hajji wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > [please Cc: to me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks]
> >
> > are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
> > or
On Saturday, August 26, 2000, Farid Hajji wrote:
> are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
> or medium future? Linux moved also from it's own libc5 to glibc (=libc6)
> some time ago and it may be useful to do the same in FreeBSD too.
There ar
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Farid Hajji writes:
>Hello,
>
>[please Cc: to me, since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks]
>
>are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
>or medium future? Linux moved also from it's own libc5
> > > are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
> > > or medium future?
Thanks for all your replies. I perfectly understand the reasons for avoiding
GNU copylefted code like glibc in FreeBSD. Using the Hurd/Mach as kernel
replacement for FreeB
> are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
> or medium future? Linux moved also from it's own libc5 to glibc (=libc6)
> some time ago and it may be useful to do the same in FreeBSD too.
Nope. The license for glibc is not one we'd want to use f
Farid Hajji wrote:
>
> > > > are there plans to replace FreeBSD's libc with GNU glibc in the near
> > > > or medium future?
> Thanks for all your replies. I perfectly understand the reasons for avoiding
> GNU copylefted code like glibc in FreeBSD. Using the
Hi folks,
I have adopted roam@'s suggestions and the latest patch is available
at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/patch-libc
Please let me know your comments, concerns and suggestions. I would
like to commit it to -HEAD if nobody objects it in one week.
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
-
72 matches
Mail list logo
