[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BSD libc or Glibc?

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 09:07:36AM +0400, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
> 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?

The rule is: if somebody starts a Glibc port, we will welcome it.
In the meantime, NetBSD libc is the path of less resistance, and
initial ports use it.  Ultimately we hope to have both packaged.  

NetBSD libc is smaller, better tuned to the kernel, and more
widely ported; Glibc is fancier.  Some packages may depend on 
Glibc features; ports of those must either wait on a Glibc port 
or #ifdef out the dependent features.

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org

Reply to: