Re: libc strategy
Nathan Myers wrote:
woah your quoting is a bit weird....
i didn't write the message i'm quoted as saying here....
that said, i do think it would be better to try to use bsd utilities and
locations for stuff as opposed to the gnu ones when possible.....
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:30:46PM -0500, GT wrote:
> > Quoting Will Yardley <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > Mostly what's been discussed in order to make this feasible is to
> > either
> > (a) port glibc to BSD, or
> > (b) patch existing packages to work with BSD libc.
> Or both, but obviously (b) first.
> > But apparently porting glibc to BSD would be a major
> > pain, and patching every existing package that doesn't work with
> > glibc would also be a major pain. I'm wondering if a third option
> > isn't possible:
> > (c) create a new library that runs on top of BSD libc
> > that simply takes glibc calls that aren't in BSD libc and provides
> > them, or functions that operate differently would be "wrapped" by our
> > glibc compatible version.
> Such a library already exists in BSD, and need only be packaged for
> Debian. In effect, (c) is just an implementation detail of (b) that
> allows much of the porting effort to be shared among all the ported
> packages. A person willing to put more work into a port might bypass
> the compat library.
> Actually, the BSD compat library even provides a degree of binary
> compatibility, which we don't need. Much of it could be discarded.
> > Is there a list
> > somewhere of what the differences are between BSD libc and glibc, or
> > is this one of those lists we'd end up compiling ourselves in the
> > process of attempting to make this work?
> Read the sources to the BSD compat library for such a list. I gather
> that the NetBSD compat library interface is based on some old version
> of Suse Linux.
> Nathan Myers
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org