On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, teunis wrote:
> > > I'll say it again and again - glibc-2.0 is the _STANDARD_ (actually
> > > reference) platform for Unix. All Unix. Not just Linux.
> > > Adopted last year.
> >
> > And...how many Unix (other then Linux) are *actually* using it?
> > Any idea on how we can test whether it is being used or not?
>
> AFAIK some BSD's are now using it - but I am probably wrong. I gave up on
> BSD in '92.
Geez, about the time I gave up on Linux and converted to *BSD
*grin*
> There's no reason to break anything with this... This is a way of
> detecting it (there are others IIRC).
>
> #if (__GLIBC__ >= 2)
> [glibc-2 stuff]
> #endif
>
> for a complicated varient.
I personally feel that this would be an acceptable way of fixing
the bugs...again, this is compiler defined, so its pretty transparent to
the 'end-user'...do you want to supply patches that does this? Thomas,
does this work for you as well?
> That and #undef HAVE_INT_TIMEZONE in os/linux.h for glibc-2... as that's
> autodetected (and invalid). Detecting HAVE_SIGSETJMP would be nice to as
> it really IS a function in glibc (just remapped via a #define).
Patch for this? I'd rather see a patch of what you'd like to
review then to blindly go around and "fix" what I can't directly test. :)
> AFAIK gnu's libc's are not used on just linux. So making it a linux-only
> thing would be almost as bad as not fixing it in the first place... *g*
> (not trying to be rude - personally I've found that the database works
> well enough regardless of the regression tests :)
It would be worse, IMHO...just look at the 'wine' project...such
good potential, but they core developers feel that supporting Linux-only
is the way to go...so they keep bringing in these really great features
... that work *only* under Linux. Then, they release a new beta and find
out that nobody else can use it anymore :(
At least 3 out of 4 of the core developers here are *BSD, so we
offset the Linux-camp very well *grin* *wave to Thomas*
