Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:15:30 +0000 (GMT) | From | Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <> | Subject | Re: baffled by glibc |
| |
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> Can somebody explain why this header separation between glibc and kernel, > touted as "the best thing from a sliced bread", is really such a good > thing? The only answer I have seen so far is that this will allow > independent changes of various structures and definitions in kernel > headers.
Also, it allows you to write a program once, and run it on tons of different operating systems without making any changes. If you rely on kernel includes, you have to make tons of changes to port a program from, for example, FreeBSD to Linux or vice versa. With glibc, you simply recompile it, and you have a working Linux version of the program.
> That is the point! A lot of system utilities **has** to know these sizes. > So far I have seen on this list a breakage in NFS, ncpfs, smbfs caused > by a mismatch in definitions between these two sets of headers
Necessary in the switch - once every application is ported to work with glibc (most of the important ones are, by now), it's ok - and you won't have to rewrite NFS etc. every time the kernel is updated.
LLaP bero
-- bero@bero-online.ml.org - ICQ/UIN 6545964 - http://www.star-trek.ml.org/ --
"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981 "Windows 95 needs at least 8 MB RAM." -- Bill Gates, 1996 "Nobody will ever need Windows 95." -- logical conclusion
| |