re: BSD libc or Glibc?

[matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>]

   So, we have to decide whatever we use native libc, or port glibc?
   I have faced some issues during my sysvinit port (it's about 
   50% done, so hold on :), that required me changing NetBSD's libc
   header files (for example, utmp.h). 
   So, let's decide, what are we going to use?


what did you have to change in utmp.h?  that seems ... the wrong
thing to do.  note that porting glibc includes all the machines
that netbsd runs on (currently 44, across 12 CPU architectures).
i don't think this will be an easy task.  i'm sure that _in the
end_ you'll probably want to do this, but as it stands there are
probably better things to work on.  libc is also highly tied to
the kernel, due to the implementation of system calls.  note that
to avoid having libc's major number bumped, that many standard
system calls are "renamed" by header files, and that the real
(modern) syscall is actually something like __fstat13().  this
will require significant work, sometimes in MD code.


i think at the very least you want to include the NetBSD libc as
`libnetbsdc', no matter what you decide to do with glibc.


.mrg.