Re: [dev] Re: sta.li progress

I think p9p libc is a big wrapper around glib. There is no plan9 libc
for unix (only some stuff that comes with go but It can not be used
with an ansi c compiler).

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Jens Staal <staal1978_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On a related note. Has anyone tried to compile APE on p9p? Would the
> APE libc compiled under p9p be possible to use as a POSIX libc on
> linux? (I might try compiling APE under p9p tonight when I get home if
> nobody has tried this yet)
>
> A second issue is: Does p9p libc get (L)GPL contaminated by the host
> libc during compilation and would this potential contamination carry
> over to the APE libc compiled with the p9p libc? If this is the case,
> it would still be good/prudent to (at least initially, as a "primer")
> compile p9p with a permissive libc (for example bionic).
>
> 2010/10/28 finkler <finkler_AT_officinamentis.org>:
>> On 10/28/10 01:16, Jacob Todd wrote:
>>> If someone was going to create a "suckless" libc, they shouldn't support
>>> posix. start with the plan 9 libraries instead of the obsd while you're at
>>> it.
>>>
>> I understand that the idea is to compile other shit, not suckless
>> software, or else we could just use the plan9 libc.
>> Why is it no one (besides some niche projects and p9p) itself actually
>> uses the p9p libc?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 28 2010 - 13:40:16 CEST