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.