any effort to use bsd libc on Linux?

2010-07-12 Thread Joe Dai
Or expand bionic to full set bsd libc? Thanks for help. joe ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-24 Thread Pavel Cahyna
when making such assertions it helps to be actually correct. while it is true that *any* old binary may require COMPAT_XX options in the kernel, netbsd supports binaries back to 386bsd for i386, with shorter periods of backwards compat for the newer plaforms. i have personally run 386bsd

re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-24 Thread matthew green
when making such assertions it helps to be actually correct. while it is true that *any* old binary may require COMPAT_XX options in the kernel, netbsd supports binaries back to 386bsd for i386, with shorter periods of backwards compat for the newer plaforms. i have personally

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-23 Thread Pavel Cahyna
Hello, some notes about NetBSD libc: it supports nsswitch for a long time, see here: http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?nsswitch.conf++NetBSD-current Dynamically loaded NSS modules are not supported. To David Brownlee: I doubt NetBSD 1.0 binary could run against a NetBSD 1.6 libc. They

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-23 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 06:41:27PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote: And, if there are things like funopen(), why do Gnome hackers invent their own APIs like gnome-vfs? Does somebody actually use funopen()? Does it really work? They presumably did it because they thought it would be a good idea.

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-23 Thread Michael Ritzert
Pavel Cahyna [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 23.01.03 19:14:41: To David Brownlee: I doubt NetBSD 1.0 binary could run against a NetBSD 1.6 libc. They don't care much about binary compatibility. You could not even run a statically linked 1.0 app without some COMPAT_ option in the kernel, I

re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-23 Thread matthew green
To David Brownlee: I doubt NetBSD 1.0 binary could run against a NetBSD 1.6 libc. They don't care much about binary compatibility. You could not even run a statically linked 1.0 app without some COMPAT_ option in the kernel, I think. when making such assertions it helps to be

re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-23 Thread matthew green
They presumably did it because they thought it would be a good idea. Perhaps they wanted to hide implementation differences between different OSes. Either way, the low-level functions in FreeBSD work just fine. FWIW, i just ran man funopen on my netbsd box and it says: HISTORY

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-21 Thread David Brownlee
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Andreas Schuldei wrote: i understood him this way: glibcs *portability* is large, since it is not only portabel over several archs but also over several kernels. bsds libc is less portable (only accross different archs) so its portability is smaller. At a

glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Atifa Kheel
Hello, I am trying to study the various functionalities supported by glibc Vs presence or absence of those features in BSD libc. This information here is w.r.t BSD libc which is supplied with FreeBSD4.6(on intel) i would like to know if i am missing something or some information is not accurate

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jan 20), Atifa Kheel said: e)Other Streams(like string streams,Obstack streams,etc) glibc: Supported BSD libc: Not Supported. BSD supports funopen() which allows the user to create handles for arbitrary stream types. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=funopen

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Andreas Schuldei
* Neal H. Walfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030120 19:10]: 3. Portability glibc:Portable to more than one Kernel and hence large BSD libc:Don’t attempt to be portable across kernels and hence smaller. I do not see the logic. If you are speaking about lines of code in the distribution, I

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:31:31AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: System database and name service switch(NSS) glibc: Supported BSD libc: NSS not supported.Incompatible shadow and password support and ancient utmp. (Problem Solved by writing a library libshadow) User applications should

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Kris Kennaway
of the world. 19. Extended Characters glibc: Supported BSD libc: No multi-byte character set functions.Breaks building UTF(Unicode) support in libncurses. wide character support is present in 5.0. Kris msg16121/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

BSD libc

2003-01-15 Thread Atifa Kheel
Hello, i want use BSD libc on my linux system. i want to know from where i can download the source and if any documentation on this is available,like the features it supports etc?? thanx in advance Atifa __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus

Re: BSD libc

2003-01-15 Thread Mike Meyer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Atifa Kheel [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: Hello, i want use BSD libc on my linux system. i want to know from where i can download the source and if any documentation on this is available,like the features it supports etc?? FreeBSD is a complete system, not a collection