Nathan Myers wrote: > woah your quoting is a bit weird.... i didn't write the message i'm quoted as saying here....
that said, i do think it would be better to try to use bsd utilities and locations for stuff as opposed to the gnu ones when possible..... w > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:30:46PM -0500, GT wrote: > > Quoting Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Mostly what's been discussed in order to make this feasible is to > > either > > (a) port glibc to BSD, or > > (b) patch existing packages to work with BSD libc. > > Or both, but obviously (b) first. > > > But apparently porting glibc to BSD would be a major > > pain, and patching every existing package that doesn't work with > > glibc would also be a major pain. I'm wondering if a third option > > isn't possible: > > (c) create a new library that runs on top of BSD libc > > that simply takes glibc calls that aren't in BSD libc and provides > > them, or functions that operate differently would be "wrapped" by our > > glibc compatible version. > > Such a library already exists in BSD, and need only be packaged for > Debian. In effect, (c) is just an implementation detail of (b) that > allows much of the porting effort to be shared among all the ported > packages. A person willing to put more work into a port might bypass > the compat library. > > Actually, the BSD compat library even provides a degree of binary > compatibility, which we don't need. Much of it could be discarded. > > > Is there a list > > somewhere of what the differences are between BSD libc and glibc, or > > is this one of those lists we'd end up compiling ourselves in the > > process of attempting to make this work? > > Read the sources to the BSD compat library for such a list. I gather > that the NetBSD compat library interface is based on some old version > of Suse Linux. > > Nathan Myers > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
