The gnulib documentation calls the GNU based systems for "glibc
platform"; I suggested that this was changed but only got unfriendly
pushback from Bruno.
The gnulib manual uses the phrase to detonate a list of operating
systems, for example
Portability problems fixed by Gnulib:
@itemize
@item
This variable is missing on all non-glibc platforms:
macOS 11.1, FreeBSD 13.0, NetBSD 9.0, OpenBSD 6.7, Minix 3.1.8, AIX 5.1,
HP-UX 11, IRIX 6.5, Solaris 11.4, Cygwin 2.9, mingw, MSVC 14, Android 9.0.
@end itemize
Portability problems not fixed by Gnulib:
@itemize
@end itemize
The suggestion was to use "GNU systems" or similar wording.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Does a system become a `glibc platform' if one uses gnulib?
>
> No, it doesn't, because
> - the term 'platform' or 'system' denotes the basic OS + base
libraries,
> - Gnulib does not emcompass glibc.
>
> Ok, so you agree that there is no such thing as a "glibc platform",
> seeing that glibc is not "basic OS + base libraries". So it makes
> sense to not use that term.
It's pointless to do hairsplitting like this. We use the term "platform"
extensively in the Gnulib documentation for 15 years:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Target-Platforms.html
and no one has ever asked for a definition, nor reported that this
documentation
was ambiguous.
> > I could not find this decision in those two references, both are pages
> > from Debian, and nothing from RMS on the topic.
>
> You can trust my memory on this statement, even though I can't find
> the precise mail where RMS announced this decision. It was probably
> in 2001.
>
> It has little to do with trust, if there is such an "announcment" it
> would be useful to put it up on gnu.org.
There is at least this FAQ on gnu.org: https://www.gnu.org/non-gnu/glibc-bsd/
> What matters is the GNU project, and what we say.
You can do advocacy of GNU and the GNU system in many places. But lists of
platforms in *technical documentation* are not the proper place to do so.
> The text over all is messy on other points as well:
>
> Portability problems fixed by Gnulib:
> @itemize
> +@item
> +This variable is missing on all non-glibc platforms:
> +macOS 11.1, FreeBSD 13.0, NetBSD 9.0, OpenBSD 6.7, Minix 3.1.8, AIX
5.1, HP-UX 11, IRIX 6.5, Solaris 11.4, Cygwin 2.9, mingw, MSVC 14, Android 9.0.
>
> ...
>
> Does this mean that FreeBSD 12 supports it? What amount Minix 2?
These questions are irrelevant. Any Gnulib user will want portability
to FreeBSD versions ⥠X, where X depends. Therefore, if they want
portability to FreeBSD 12, they will also want portability to FreeBSD 13.
If a feature is not available on FreeBSD 13, it therefore does not
matter whether it is present on FreeBSD 12, 11, 6.4, or 1.0.
> Are
> these "all" the platforms, seeing that it is an exhaustive list in
> detail.
See
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Target-Platforms.html
> We avoid
> mentioning them out of principle, since we do not want to promote
> them.
Are you saying that it *promotes* HP-UX, to state that HP-UX 11 lacks
a certain variable?
> Why isn't freedos listed?
See
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Target-Platforms.html
> Is this list manually updated each,
> and every time those companies or projects make a release? That seems
> like useless churn.
Please leave it up to me, to decide on what tasks/patches I spend or waste
my time. I don't comment publicly on the cost/benefit ratio of your tasks/
patches either.
Bruno
