Re: [dev] [lnanosmtp]

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 15:41:22 +0200

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:02:29 +0200
Kamil CholewiƄski <> wrote:

Hey Kamil,

> So libc is overkill, but instead you ship an entire tangled hierarchy of
> nonportable and arch-specific headers to talk directly to the kernel,
> which will all probably break in a random point release.

I couldn't agree more.

> > Overkill, don't need that much.

This is so full of bullshit. There's no reason e.g. not to make it
compilable on the BSD's. The Linux syscall-interface is also prone
to changes.
You should really re-think this decision. If you talk about overkill,
what is the big deal? You'll find a libc in any system really, and
even for crazy embedded cases, you could just create a statically
linked binary.



Received on Thu Jun 09 2016 - 15:41:22 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Jun 09 2016 - 15:48:11 CEST