[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOnWdoghW_CqQTMbCSy+u35RHpLm+0EBjF5_PNUV7pTJg=ua0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:24:07 +0100
From: Reuben Thomas <rrt@...d.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: printf POSIX compliance
On 9 June 2012 22:11, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
[Much interesting discussion]
I think all of this discussion raises perhaps the most important
point, which is that many of the underlying motivations for gnulib and
musl is the same.
Personally, the best thing about gnulib for me is that it essentially
provides a sort of "libposix": I can write to standards, and gnulib
picks up the slack on real systems.
That's similar to musl's approach of "provide a working libc you can
use anywhere".
While I suspect that fundamentally the two projects will continue,
with good reason, to go their own way, it'd be really good to see
co-operation to the extent that is practical, so that for example more
software can build with either approach, and in particular, that the
two projects can happily co-exist, so that hackers like myself can
spend more time writing software to standards and less time worrying
about bugs in the code on which we rely, whether system code, or
efforts like gnulib and musl to fill in the gaps without the pain and
slowness of involving vendors (who of necessity must be relatively
conservative).
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
