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*
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
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
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*
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
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
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
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
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*
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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,
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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*
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
(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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 --
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
50 matches
Mail list logo
