This whole conversation seems baffling to me. Have any of the people posting opinions actually looked at the source code of the two libcs ?
glibc is a complex horror [1]; the BSD libc is a fairly nice and clean implementation. It seems to me that there is little doubt which libc we would prefer if we want good code quality. Also, nearly all of the programs in Debian are _supposed_ to be portable to BSD anyway, at least upstream. Pretty much anything that doesn't work is either a bug in the Debian package, or in the BSD libc. I understand that the i18n facilities in the BSD libc are not currently adequate or working and that this is a considerable problem. This is of course a bug in the BSD libc, but surely we can just punt on it by supplying a bunch of stub routines ? Debian GNU/BSD won't have i18n then of course until the BSD libc is sorted out, but that seems fair enough. If i18n people don't like that they can go and work on the BSD libc. Ian. [1] I tried to fix a bug in its stdio recently and discovered that glibc contains two complete but mutually incompatible implementations of stdio ! The one that's actually usually used is a layer over a strange beast that's written in C but is isomorphic to C++ iostreams (which results in an astonishing mess). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
