On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 22:49 +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
On Jan 18, 2013 8:48 PM, "Lennart Poettering" <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18.01.13 20:20, Björn Persson (bjorn(a)xn--rombobjrn-67a.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