Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:34:51 +0000 (GMT) From: David Brownlee <abs@purplei.com> To: Andreas Schuldei <andreas@schuldei.org> Cc: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@cs.uml.edu>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, debian-bsd@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: glibc vs BSD libc Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.51.0301211130520.357@moss.i.purplei.com> In-Reply-To: <20030120202540.GG30396@lukas> References: <20030120130538.74079.qmail@web12606.mail.yahoo.com> <87bs2bpufr.fsf@bassanio.walfield.org> <20030120202540.GG30396@lukas>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > i understood him this way: glibcs *portability* is large, since > it is not only portabel over several archs but also over several > kernels. > > bsds libc is less portable (only accross different archs) so its > portability is smaller. At a source or a binary level? A NetBSD 1.6 box can run NetBSD 1.0 binaries, complete with their shared libraries. A NetBSD 1.0 binary should even run against a NetBSD 1.6 libc (modulus a.out or ECOFF changes to ELF). -- David Brownlee - CTO Purple Interactive - (0)20 8742 8880 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.4.51.0301211130520.357>