Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-24 Thread Pavel Cahyna
Hello, > the compat packages exist to provide missing libraries. the netbsd > libc "soname" has never changed -- it was libc.so.12 when the first > ELF port arrived, and it is libc.so.12 today. of course you can not So the ABI for libc didn't change since the introduction of ELF and no compat l

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 personal

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 386b

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: HISTOR

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 act

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,

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. P

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-23 Thread Jens Rehsack
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. On my 4.7-STABLE machine I took a look now is a wchar.h in /usr/include/. Also audio/id3lib compiles fine with

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 don't

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

Re: glibc vs BSD libc

2003-01-20 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:05:38AM -0800, Atifa Kheel wrote: Some other comments: > glibc support for standards: > ANSI C(ISO C) > POSIX (Pthreads support) > SYSTEM V > (Eg: > Malloc tunable parameter(mallopt) > Extensions : > Statistics for storage allocation with malloc(mallinfo) > _tolower() a

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

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 dis

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 > S