On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> >> IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with
> >> scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing
> >> problems in the library forever.
> >
> > First we'll merge the patchset in upstream. Then we'll have problems for a
> > while, similarly to those the GNU/Hurd port has fixing Glibc every time it
> > breaks for them.
> >
> > But unlike GNU/Hurd, at some point upstream developers will install GNU/K*BSD
> > themselves and maintain it for us.
>
> If you mean that the NetBSD folks are going to abandon their libc,
> which is really nice to work with, I think you're mistaken. It is
> unlikely that they're ever going to do that. ("They" includes me,
> fyi.) Because of that, you'll have to maintain patches to do the
> scheduler activations dance forever. SA is probably the most
> complicated way to do threads that's out there, so this will not, in
> the end, be particularly pleasant.
>
> If you had a list of functional deficiencies in the native libc,
> though, it would probably be possible to re-implement them and fix
> them in the native NetBSD libc. NetBSD would like to be maximally
> compatible with third party apps, so we add stuff we need all the time
> and are happy to do it. It would also likely be far less work to add a
> few dozen new functions to libc than for you to re-implement the
> userland SA framework and debug it.
I can say, from experience, that this is entirely true. Having found a
couple of fairly major deficienies (__cxx_atexit, [n]ftw), they're quite
willing to work with folks to figure out ways to add support for just about
anything that's sane, and discuss what is or is not sane, and why. :)
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpoNBijJFT5p.pgp
Description: PGP signature