glibc stacking up to Windows

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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