Re: glibc
Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to avoid duplicate work. Thanks.) Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc? glibc has better POSIX locale and I18N / L10N support : - localedef(1) and locale(1) utilities - nl_langinfo(3) XPG-4 function - gettext built-in into glibc -- -=AV=- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Alexander Voropay wrote: glibc has better POSIX locale and I18N / L10N support : - localedef(1) and locale(1) utilities - nl_langinfo(3) XPG-4 function - gettext built-in into glibc Again this is just a handful of functions, that IMO are best not put into libc. Take the dl*() functions. They're not in fbsd's libc, but they're ing glibc. Doesn't mean they're not easily available. Hell gettext *is* a port. Not every app is going to need to be internationalized, not every app *should* be penalized. If you think it'd be easier to port the whole glibc than to port a hand ful of functions, nobody is stopping you :) - alex You better believe that marijuana can cause castration. Just suppose your girlfriend gets the munchies! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... Many of these common GNU routines (including getopt_long) are in liberty. That's what it was made for. It's fallen out of maintainence, but I recall somebody making noises a month or two ago about reviving it. joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to avoid duplicate work. Thanks.) Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc? glibc has better POSIX locale and I18N / L10N support : - localedef(1) and locale(1) utilities - nl_langinfo(3) XPG-4 function - gettext built-in into glibc -- -=AV=- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Alexander Voropay wrote: glibc has better POSIX locale and I18N / L10N support : - localedef(1) and locale(1) utilities - nl_langinfo(3) XPG-4 function - gettext built-in into glibc Again this is just a handful of functions, that IMO are best not put into libc. Take the dl*() functions. They're not in fbsd's libc, but they're ing glibc. Doesn't mean they're not easily available. Hell gettext *is* a port. Not every app is going to need to be internationalized, not every app *should* be penalized. If you think it'd be easier to port the whole glibc than to port a hand ful of functions, nobody is stopping you :) - alex You better believe that marijuana can cause castration. Just suppose your girlfriend gets the munchies! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... Many of these common GNU routines (including getopt_long) are in liberty. That's what it was made for. It's fallen out of maintainence, but I recall somebody making noises a month or two ago about reviving it. joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - jo...@gnu.org Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux) easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linux would benefit of having compatible libc:s. I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier. 99% of the porting issues you'll run into, are from a.) lack of sys/types.h being included, or order of headers being included. b.) dependencies on Linux-specific ioctls or syscalls, such as clone, which are not really libc related. c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. Perhaps porting BSD libc to Linux would be easier? I doubt it. The glibc has been designed with portability in mind (hell, it's purported to run on Irix), FreeBSD's with security and speed. - alex What I am is what I am, What you are is what you are - Edie Brickell (ain't she profound?) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier. You think so? I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for FreeBSD (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine). c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. What bugs have you found in glibc 2.1.1? Have you reported those to the GNU folks? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: You think so? Yes. I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for FreeBSD (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine). *sigh* It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. AFAIK *ONLY* glibc has the long-getopt crap, and if that's the only thing you're running into, it should be easy enough to rip out the long getopt code, and add a few proper defines and have the standard libc coexist peacefully with the GNU getopt. c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. What bugs have you found in glibc 2.1.1? Have you reported those to the GNU folks? I personally haven't found any, but I've seen for instance, kcalc is riddled with ifdefs and warnings about floating point precision stuff and RH 5.something due to glibc bug(s). - alex I thought felt your touch In my car, on my clutch But I guess it's just someone who felt a lot like I remember you. - Translator To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? -- |Chris Costello [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Watch out for off-by-one errors. `-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: # On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: # # It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine # is a bug. # # I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of # programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, # though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. How about gnugetopt? FreeBSD already has a port, devel/libgnugetopt, that does this. :) -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Chris Costello wrote: What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Nothing. But I don't think they're as bad as you say, especially when you're new to a program and don't know the short options yet. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote: How about gnugetopt? FreeBSD already has a port, devel/libgnugetopt, that does this. :) Great. I'll check this out. Thanks. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
Chris Costello wrote: What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who doesn't hate it. -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Everything journalists write is true, except when they write about something you know. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Chris Costello wrote: What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who doesn't hate it. Good morning, Daniel! As someone more helpful than myself in this thread has already pointed out, it seems, there is a port for the GNU getopt, known as 'libgnugetopt'. I would imagine this would help the thread's originator in porting the GNU utilities to FreeBSD. -- |Chris Costello [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked. ` To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
(most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine). FreeBSD does have a real, 100% posix compatible getopt. Maybe you are missing one of the numerous, non-standard Linux extentions? Gnu's getopt can be found in about a dozen different places in the FreeBSD tree. cvs, tar, etc. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Per Lundberg writes: : I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of : programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, : though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chris Costello writes: : getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Not everyone hates them... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote: There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... Yeah, I was thinking about something like that. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc. It would be nice to go in, perhaps as a weak symbol (to remain compatible with FreeBSD packages including their own getopt.) And don't tell me to look at the getopt long code itself. That stuff is sickening. I just want the [exact] API. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!_ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Per Lundberg writes: : I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of : programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, : though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... How about libcompat/gnu/? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!_ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian F. Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [GNU getopt] If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc. Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in two different places -- binutils and gdb). It might be better just to install libiberty from one of those places. Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ and which one is "better". :-) John -- John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] John D. Polstra Co., Inc.Seattle, Washington USA "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."-- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian F. Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [GNU getopt] If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc. Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in two different places -- binutils and gdb). It might be better just to install libiberty from one of those places. But it would be nice to have a free long getopt implementation. Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ and which one is "better". :-) I'd rather hurt myself severely. Wait a second, that's exactly what I'd be doing in the first place to do what you asked! Hm John -- John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] John D. Polstra Co., Inc.Seattle, Washington USA "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."-- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!_ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
Brian F. Feldman wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote: Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ and which one is "better". :-) I'd rather hurt myself severely. Of course. That's a prerequisite for becoming a committer. :-) John --- John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] John D. Polstra Co., Inc.Seattle, Washington USA "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."-- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc? I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux) easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linux would benefit of having compatible libc:s. Perhaps porting BSD libc to Linux would be easier? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux) easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linux would benefit of having compatible libc:s. I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier. 99% of the porting issues you'll run into, are from a.) lack of sys/types.h being included, or order of headers being included. b.) dependencies on Linux-specific ioctls or syscalls, such as clone, which are not really libc related. c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. Perhaps porting BSD libc to Linux would be easier? I doubt it. The glibc has been designed with portability in mind (hell, it's purported to run on Irix), FreeBSD's with security and speed. - alex What I am is what I am, What you are is what you are - Edie Brickell (ain't she profound?) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: I seriously doubt this will make porting any easier. You think so? I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for FreeBSD (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine). c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. What bugs have you found in glibc 2.1.1? Have you reported those to the GNU folks? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: You think so? Yes. I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for FreeBSD (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine). *sigh* It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. AFAIK *ONLY* glibc has the long-getopt crap, and if that's the only thing you're running into, it should be easy enough to rip out the long getopt code, and add a few proper defines and have the standard libc coexist peacefully with the GNU getopt. c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. What bugs have you found in glibc 2.1.1? Have you reported those to the GNU folks? I personally haven't found any, but I've seen for instance, kcalc is riddled with ifdefs and warnings about floating point precision stuff and RH 5.something due to glibc bug(s). - alex I thought felt your touch In my car, on my clutch But I guess it's just someone who felt a lot like I remember you. - Translator To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? -- |Chris Costello ch...@calldei.com |Watch out for off-by-one errors. `-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: # On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: # # It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine # is a bug. # # I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of # programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, # though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. How about gnugetopt? FreeBSD already has a port, devel/libgnugetopt, that does this. :) -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Chris Costello wrote: What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Nothing. But I don't think they're as bad as you say, especially when you're new to a program and don't know the short options yet. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Steve Price wrote: How about gnugetopt? FreeBSD already has a port, devel/libgnugetopt, that does this. :) Great. I'll check this out. Thanks. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
Chris Costello wrote: What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who doesn't hate it. -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) d...@newsguy.com d...@freebsd.org Everything journalists write is true, except when they write about something you know. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: Chris Costello wrote: What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Hi, I'm Daniel. Pleased to meet you. Now you know someone who doesn't hate it. Good morning, Daniel! As someone more helpful than myself in this thread has already pointed out, it seems, there is a port for the GNU getopt, known as 'libgnugetopt'. I would imagine this would help the thread's originator in porting the GNU utilities to FreeBSD. -- |Chris Costello ch...@calldei.com |Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked. ` To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
(most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine). FreeBSD does have a real, 100% posix compatible getopt. Maybe you are missing one of the numerous, non-standard Linux extentions? Gnu's getopt can be found in about a dozen different places in the FreeBSD tree. cvs, tar, etc. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
In message pine.lnx.4.10.9907191452050.14185-100...@abraham.chaosdev.org Per Lundberg writes: : I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of : programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, : though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
In message 19990719080712.a15...@holly.dyndns.org Chris Costello writes: : getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Not everyone hates them... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote: There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... Yeah, I was thinking about something like that. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc. It would be nice to go in, perhaps as a weak symbol (to remain compatible with FreeBSD packages including their own getopt.) And don't tell me to look at the getopt long code itself. That stuff is sickening. I just want the [exact] API. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ gr...@freebsd.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!_ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote: In message pine.lnx.4.10.9907191452050.14185-100...@abraham.chaosdev.org Per Lundberg writes: : I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of : programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, : though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. There has been talking of having a libgnu.a to contain common routines like the long getopt... How about libcompat/gnu/? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ gr...@freebsd.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!_ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
In article pine.bsf.4.10.9907191315440.40596-100...@janus.syracuse.net, Brian F. Feldman gr...@freebsd.org wrote: [GNU getopt] If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc. Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in two different places -- binutils and gdb). It might be better just to install libiberty from one of those places. Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ and which one is better. :-) John -- John Polstra j...@polstra.com John D. Polstra Co., Inc.Seattle, Washington USA No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.-- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote: In article pine.bsf.4.10.9907191315440.40596-100...@janus.syracuse.net, Brian F. Feldman gr...@freebsd.org wrote: [GNU getopt] If you give me documentation on it, I'll implement it for the BSD libc. Note, we already have GNU getopt in the source tree in libiberty (in two different places -- binutils and gdb). It might be better just to install libiberty from one of those places. But it would be nice to have a free long getopt implementation. Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ and which one is better. :-) I'd rather hurt myself severely. Wait a second, that's exactly what I'd be doing in the first place to do what you asked! Hm John -- John Polstra j...@polstra.com John D. Polstra Co., Inc.Seattle, Washington USA No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.-- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ gr...@freebsd.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!_ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
Brian F. Feldman wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote: Left as an exercise for the reader: Figure out how the two differ and which one is better. :-) I'd rather hurt myself severely. Of course. That's a prerequisite for becoming a committer. :-) John --- John Polstra j...@polstra.com John D. Polstra Co., Inc.Seattle, Washington USA No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.-- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Warner Losh wrote: In message 19990719080712.a15...@holly.dyndns.org Chris Costello writes: : getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? Not everyone hates them... Sure, I don't hate them either... until I try and port something that depends on them. Then I get annoyed. Some sort of compatible extension should be devised, so that a small block of code could be ifdef'd to provide support for long options, and the rest would work with a standard getopt routine. - alex You better believe that marijuana can cause castration. Just suppose your girlfriend gets the munchies! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc? I need a libc 100% compatible with glibc to make porting (from Linux) easier. And, as a side note, I think both FreeBSD and Linux would benefit of having compatible libc:s. Uh, if you are using libc correctly, there should be no porting issues at all. Perhaps porting BSD libc to Linux would be easier? Perhaps you should just fix the applications in the first place? -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msm...@freebsd.org \\-- Joseph Merrick \\ msm...@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to avoid duplicate work. Thanks.) Not that I know of, but what's the point? -- |Chris Costello [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Programming just with goto's is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. ` To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to avoid duplicate work. Thanks.) Not that I know of, but what's the point? -- |Chris Costello ch...@calldei.com |Programming just with goto's is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. ` To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: glibc
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: Has anybody done a port of glibc to FreeBSD? (I'm not interested in opinions about how poor it is or how evil the FSF are; I'm only asking to avoid duplicate work. Thanks.) Perhaps if you explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, there might be an easier option than porting *shudder* glibc? - alex The sheep bleated twice. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
