Re: [dev] Re: sta.li progress

I mean glibc

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM, pmarin <pacogeek_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 - 13:43:19 CEST