Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers

[Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roger Leigh wrote:
> Erast Benson <erast@gnusolaris.org> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
>>> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
>>> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
>>> if it was of release quality).  
>>>
>>> IMHO a glibc-based OpenSolaris would certainly be the better and more
>>> interesting option (but might take some effort initially).
>> Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will
>> not run any existing Solaris apps like you will not be able to run
>> simple thinks like Macromedia flush player, JRE, JDK, Oracle, SAP, etc
>> etc... Do you still wanna do that?
> 
> Yes, IMO.
> 
[snip]
> 
> GNU libc likely does not support Solaris-specific features.  This is
> not a reason to not use GNU libc however, but is a reason to add the
> missing features.  I understand that glibc was known to work on
> Solaris in the past, so it can surely be fixed up to work with some
> effort.  In the long term, having GNU libc on GNU/Solaris is very
> desirable, and I wouldn't call it GNU/Solaris myself until it uses GNU
> libc.

If you aren't getting Solaris-specific features (dtrace, etc ?),
then what's the point of running Solaris?

(Please don't think this a flame, it's a sincere question.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEb7YNS9HxQb37XmcRAnZSAJ9lvT+eRUeI1h49XKB4h01O20oGvgCg7mt4
muS1l9raaQ8ZU9LxIcEeyNA=
=zANb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----