Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> -On [20000822 17:55], Ollivier Robert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >According to Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven:
> >> Alternatively the sentiment just rose why we couldn't just collapse the
> >> crypt/hash functions of libcrypt into libc.
> >>
> >> It would make sense.
> >
> >It would make even make more sense to convince the other BSD to do the same
> >(haven't checked recently what they do) and do the merge.
> I very much agree.
> Would it be sensible for the regular cypherpunks to discuss this with
> the NetBSD and OpenBSD brothers?
> Otherwise I would be willing to open this discussion on the appropriate
> lists.

Is there any current policy on what libc is? It certainly isn't "libc"
as required by C and hasn't been for almost ever but there needs to be
some rational to its existence otherwise why not fold everything into
libc and not bother with any other libraries!

A growing libc makes static binaries grow and makes it more difficult to
strip out unneeded functionality from a minimalist system install. I'd
been inclined to try and move things the other way and strip stuff out
of libc into separate libraries but that's obviously not in vogue at the

Why does crypt need to be in libc? Not even a significant fraction of
applications need crypt?


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to