On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 22:49 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2013 8:48 PM, "Lennart Poettering" <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 18.01.13 20:20, Björn Persson (bjorn@rombobjörn.se) wrote: > > > > > If your functions get added to GlibC, then they will only be > available > > > in GNU systems (unless other vendors decide to clone them) and > programs > > > that use them will be tied to GNU or will need workarounds in > their > > > configuration scripts in order to be portable. If you make them a > > > separate, portable library, then they can be installed on all > Unix-like > > > systems, and maybe other operating systems too, and programs that > use > > > them will also be portable. Wouldn't that be better? > > > > Yes, let's make our platform as bad as possible, so that people > really > > have a hard time writing software for it. If they then do write > software > > for it anyway they will have to do everything on their own, pull in > a > > gazillion of dependencies for that, and can do that in a thousand > > different combinations, because that makes the code better, gets > people > > to test codepaths better, and just makes their lifes a lot more fun. > > > > For example, I really find it appalling that Linux had proper > threads > > support (and even in the libc!) so early, at a time where OpenBSD > > didn't. I think Linux really hurt the open source ecosystem with > > that, as people could write threaded up for Linux that then wouldn't > > work on OpenBSD. > > > > Booh, Linux, bad, Linux! > > > > Lennart > > > > --; > > > I think you have a good point, but adding every imaginable featw into > glibc is not really a good solution. Maybe glib is a better place for > these kinds of functions? It really depends on what is the audience. A lot of software doesn't link to glib and will not link to this huge lib just for 2 functions. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
