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

Re: BSD libc or Glibc?

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:18:55AM +0400, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:41:46PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> > what did you have to change in utmp.h? 
> I had to add ut_id to struct utmp, which is an inittab Id required
> for some sysvinit checks.

I once made a python cross-platform module for handling utmp, and
my solution was to use #define ut_id ut_line for those
systems not having ut_id

> > that seems ... the wrong
> > thing to do.
> Actually, I understand this. But changing init on the system requires
> some changes to that system :) Once I will at least compile everything,
> I will post a whole list of the changes required, and we will discuss
> it closer..

maybe you could have a look at other (compatible) init's, there is
busybox (not quite compatible, though), and maybe others

> I would vote (and I insist on it) for leaving native libc for the reasons
> you described. Most of the packages compile on NetBSD and FreeBSD
> with any fiddling, so I see no need in a hard work porting a glibc.

when you use glibc, you throw away 50% of the reasons for doing
debian port to *BSD. glibc is far too bloated, BSD libc is fast and lean.
(yes, missing some things... but nothing crucial)

| Radovan Garabik http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__    garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk     |
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

Reply to: