This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
- From: tb at becket dot net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at frob dot com>, Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>, Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 09 Jan 2002 16:43:38 -0800
- Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201091457080.1588-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
> No, it's not.
>
> Technically simple, yes.
>
> But from a user perspective it is absolutely _useless_. Because you still
> cannot depend on the functions being there in glibc, even if _BSD_SOURCE
> is defined.
Excuse me? If you add the functions, conditional on _BSD_SOURCE, then
how exactly would programs not be able to depend on them?
> So programs would still have to do all the same autoconf to be portable,
> even if they used glibc. And that's the argument here.
But that's an argument for *never* adding functions to glibc. After
all, any really useful function is already going to be carried around
just in case its absent.