Re: glibc vs BSD libc
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:42:55AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > So, coming back to the main topic: how did the NetBSD/intel people
> > overcome these difficulties caused by bsd libc/glibc?
>
> Most of the difficulties are non-portable code (such as code that uses GNU
> extensions *without* wrapping them in suitable #ifdefs, or doesn't provide
> any alternative to them). Generally, at least so far, the patches are not
> terribly difficult, and we just submit them to the maintainer (and request
> forwarding it upstream, if applicable). Folks tend to be just fine with
> having their code be more portable if someone else is doing the scutwork of
> making it so. :)
Most of them aren't too hard. The hard ones can be _very_ hard.
> Honestly, I personally generally find far more difficulties in handling
> stuff that assumes a primarily glibc/Linux environment at the core
> (base-passwd and PAM spring to mind). These can also be fixed, but finding
> some sane and resaonable way is often non-trivial. Though the last I'd
> heard, the PAM maintainer was quite happy to work with us, as soon as we
> got to the point that we had the things it depends on, and I haven't really
> done much on base-passwd integration due to other issues (that is to say,
> base-passwd and PAM are some of the *least* critical, and in the case of
> base-passwd, I would prefer to patch our libc to handle things more like
> what Linux expects, instead of making base-passwd cope with pwdb stuff).
PAM and base-passwd weren't hard, after libshadow. Shadow, sysvinit,
util-linux, and several others like them are major headaches. I've
noticed that the essential packages seem to have the most problems. :(
---Nathan
Reply to: