Mail Archives: pgcc/1998/01/23/22:30:36
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 02:13:25PM -0600, Dustin Marquess wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> > That's still the case - you're not supposed to use kernel includes
> > anymore, which is one of the main advantages of glibc over libc 5.x.
> > (Don't hack the include files, hack the programs calling them. There are
> > several sites on the net providing patches to some important apps, such as
> > http://www.glibc.ml.org/.)
>
> If you have to hack every program you get in order to get it to
> compile under glibc, it kind of breaks portability, not to mention ease of
> use...
you miss the point... these programs were _BROKEN_, and had to be fixed.
do you want a libc that accepts everything so when porting the program
to another machine you get mysterious errors, or do you want a libc that
forces posix compliance on you, thus saving you from future
hassles?
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
- Raw text -