> > Is it _absolutely_ necessary to use glibc with the Hurd? > Why on earth would one want not to? The Hurd developers have no interest > whatsoever in using anything but the GNU C library for the GNU system. The Hurd is IMHO more than just a simple kernel replacement of a glibc- based system. Due to its flexibility, other applications like host-os subhurds are possible too. Just because it's 'oolitically correct' to stick to glibc doesn't mean that we _must_! Other GNU programs are not dependent on glibc either (thank goodness!).
Another reason I'm having problems with glibc is very simple: I can't figure out how to compile that beast on *BSD systems yet (or BTW any non-Linux system) even at all or without _much_ contortions :-( But this is just one reason. The main interest here is to 1. isolate the ukernel interface of the Hurd from the more generic C library so that it can be ported _separately_ and more easily to other ukernels or host-os(s). 2. obtain the hosted sub-hurd at a very low cost (in terms of efforts). -Farid. -- Farid Hajji -- Unix Systems and Network Admin | Phone: +49-2131-67-555 Broicherdorfstr. 83, D-41564 Kaarst, Germany | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - Murphy's Law fails only when you try to demonstrate it, and thus succeeds.
