Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > libc > libm > libdl > libutil > libresolv > libcrypt > libncurses > libreadline
Oh, of course; those aren't system-specific libraries though. It's the idea of splitting libc into different system specific libraries that I think is a mistake. I have no objection to a new generically named library for specific sets of tasks. (Of course five of the libraries in your list are all generated from the libc source. :) > Well, you used to be named Michael; I think my vacillation is minor in > comparison. I don't object to changing of minds; that's fine. > I think there ought to be a separate Linux library for purely > Linux-specific interfaces that other system could possibly implement. It > just makes life simpler for writing portable applications. There are only > a few pieces of a GNU/Linux ABI that are hard to match exactly on a > non-Linux implementation. It just makes sense to segregate those so their > library (or at least version set) dependencies indicate clearly what kind > of nonportable hooey they rely on. Except I think it's a mistake to label those "linux-specific". The danger of that is that as soon as it gets implemented on some other system, it ceases to be Linux specific. Moreover, there is nothing Hurd-specific about fetch_boot_time. It should be implementable on any system, and is a reasonable entirely generic function. Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
