Re: libc strategy
Quoting Nathan Myers <ncm@nospam.cantrip.org>:
> Such a library already exists in BSD, and need only be packaged for
> Debian. In effect, (c) is just an implementation detail of (b) that
> allows much of the porting effort to be shared among all the ported
> packages. A person willing to put more work into a port might bypass
> the compat library.
>
> Actually, the BSD compat library even provides a degree of binary
> compatibility, which we don't need. Much of it could be discarded.
Hey! Good idea! I was just worrying about source compatibility, so
it never occurred to me -- but we may have the answer right under our
noses already. If Nathan's right, I don't see why we couldn't start
producing transitional packages Real Soon Now(tm). Ideally, the goal
would be to make every package compile against BSD libc without
needing to link in the compat library, but in the mean time we could
get a real working system up fairly quickly I should think. Frankly,
I think that should be our first goal. Once that is working, we can
start worrying about porting each required package to BSD libc
natively, then each important package, then each standard package.
>From there, we can probably let individual package maintainers
worry about whether to provide native BSD libc support or just link
against the compat library...
--
GT <gt@dreamsmith.org> http://www.dreamsmith.org
"We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a
journey that no one else can take for us or spare us." - Marcel Proust
Reply to: