This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Wish for 2002 ...
- From: Jim Hebert <jhebert at jhebert dot cx>
- To: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb at becket dot net>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at frob dot com>, Paul Eggert <eggert at twinsun dot com>, <leclerc at austin dot sns dot slb dot com>, <security-audit at ferret dot lmh dot ox dot ac dot uk>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>, <open-source at csl dot sri dot com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:32:28 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Wish for 2002 ...
On 10 Jan 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sure they do impose new difficulties!
> Once we could say "BSD programs compile under glibc with no
> library-related incompatibilities" and "A goal of glibc is to function
> as a replacement for the system library".
> With deviations like this, we lose the ability to say either of those
That's a tautology. "XYZ doesn't cause difficulties." "Yes it does, it
makes it difficult to truthfully say <false statement>."
glibc is 1283964 bytes on my machine. If the glibc maintainers send me a
new version with this function added, I won't be able to say that anymore.
> reason for caring about standards in the first place.
This is astounding. Some BSD apps suddenly begin using a NON-standard and
known-at-the-time-to-be-non-portable API, which breaks the vaunted
property of glibc's ability to drop in, and somehow that's glibc's fault.
And now 3 lists worth of people have to hear this highly ironic view of
what it means to "[care] about standards"?
"The BSD groups are like high school social circles. No, really! That's the
best analogy I can think of!" Matt Dillon, FreeBSD VM/kernel developer