Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:55:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Zepeda <garbanzo@hooked.net> To: Per Lundberg <plundis@chaosdev.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: glibc Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907190051270.4478-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907190946100.11914-100000@abraham.chaosdev.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: > You think so? Yes. > I experience a lot of this when I try to recompile stuff for FreeBSD > (most of it are due to lack of a real getopt routine). *sigh* It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine is a bug. AFAIK *ONLY* glibc has the long-getopt crap, and if that's the only thing you're running into, it should be easy enough to rip out the long getopt code, and add a few proper defines and have the standard libc coexist peacefully with the GNU getopt. > > c.) dependencies on bugs in glibc. > > What bugs have you found in glibc 2.1.1? Have you reported those to the > GNU folks? I personally haven't found any, but I've seen for instance, kcalc is riddled with ifdefs and warnings about floating point precision stuff and RH 5.something due to glibc bug(s). - alex I thought felt your touch In my car, on my clutch But I guess it's just someone who felt a lot like I remember you. - Translator To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9907190051270.4478-100000>