On Thursday 12 May 2005 08:58 am, Francesco Riosa wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:20 pm, Francesco Riosa wrote: > >>what we have: > >>At the moment have_NPTL is defined in eclass/eutils.eclass, it compile a > >>small test program to check if glibc have nptl support. > > > >hasnt this been outgrown ? people should `use nptl` now i think > > yes and no, > no, 2005.0 still default to -ntpl and -ntplonly > yes, it's used only by mono project ebuilds (grep has spoken)
so what if 2005.0 defaults to -nptl and -nptlonly ? you're trying to decide if you should apply a nptl workaround or not ? USE=nptl makes sense if mono is the only thing [ab]using have_NPTL, then maybe i'll bug latexer/dotnet guys and see why they cant utilize USE=nptl > >>there are drawbacks on the use of getconfig (that come with glibc) ? > >>Maybe it's not supported from *libc ? > > > >well i'd point out that glibc is the only libc atm to implement NPTL ... > > but then i'd point out someone is working on it for uClibc ... > >-mike > > mmh ok, btw all variant of glibc had getconf ? uClibc isnt a 'glibc variant', but to answer your question, getconf is a glibc-ism -mike -- [email protected] mailing list
