On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote: > For avoidance of doubt, I'm not going to argue this point. It seems > reasonable to me, but I am not an expert on GLIBC or GNU/Linux system > architecture issues. My thought is that putting more of this stuff into > (E)GLIBC -- especially given that we have configurability to control > what's included -- makes things simpler for people in that they don't > have to create/maintain/use zillions of little libraries.
$ ldd /usr/bin/gnome-terminal | wc -l 57 $ The normal GNU/Linux way is now to have many little libraries. ntpd may be linked with rather fewer than gnome-terminal, but on my system it's still linked with libcap (POSIX.1e capabilities) and libattr (extended attributes), neither of which is part of EGLIBC even though both might be considered to relate to kernel interfaces. -- Joseph S. Myers [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
