This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc stacking up to Windows
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:42:47PM +0300, Michael Lueck wrote:
> Dwayne Grant McConnell wrote:
>
> >Please go to http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ and read the History and
> >Project Goals sections of the web page.
>
> I did and found...
>
> "The GNU C library is primarily designed to be a portable and high
> performance C library."
>
> Sounds good to me.
That is, the library specified by the C language standard (ISO/ANSI)
and by additional standards like POSIX. Please think about that for a
bit. If you want other libraries, that provide other functionality
that another OS considers "core", do it outside of glibc (and outside
of the glibc development lists), please.
> You seem to desire to start religious OS battles, not answer my question.
> On Windows, Win32 and the Windows API's are the "core" API's available to
> programs written in C. On Linux it would appear to me that glibc is the
> equivalent library of functions available to C. Is this not what glibc is
> to Linux?
No, that is not glibc's role.
> specified, and arrive at the fully qualified filespec based on what it was
> provided. I asked how Linux C developers do those sorts of things since it
> would appear glibc does not offer API's to do so. What, no one copies files
> on Linux?!
You run cp. Or another, non-glibc library which provides a C API for
doing so.
And you use realpath and canonicalize_file_name, which you
appear to have not noticed, but which are available in glibc.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery