[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Porting the Hurd to L4 (glibc dependencies, dropping glibc?)

From: Farid Hajji
Subject: Re: Porting the Hurd to L4 (glibc dependencies, dropping glibc?)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:46:19 +0100


> Look, whatever you want to hack on is fine with me.  If you contribute
> changes to Hurd and/or glibc that are clean and do not have negative
> consequences for the ways we are using the code now, then we will probably
> accept your changes.  But the development priorities of the Hurd project
> per se are very unlikely to go in such a direction, and I am not interested
if you would let us participate to your concepts of current and future
development, such discussions would be more effective. We can't guess
what you're planning to do on short or middle term if you don't post
your ideas somewhere :(.

BTW, porting glibc to *BSD is not on my priorities list either, as this is
not what I'm currently looking for nor interested in. There is enough
trouble hacking up L4 servers already, without having to port glibc. I'm
not having the glibc expertise to do so anyway.

> in a whole lot of chatter about the merits of various wildly different
> directions I don't plan to go any time soon.  Less talking and more hacking.
Look, I didn't want to attack you or whoever wrote up glibc, so there's no
need to reply like this. Basically, you suggest nothing less than to shut
up and do our own non-approved stuff without asking for feedback from the
list. This is asking for a split in development :-((( Sad perspectives...,
but splits are necessary sometimes.

Okay, this discussion is obviously getting us nowhere. If anyone is intersted
to help me with what I suggested, please contact me on PM. We could try
to do "less talking and more hacking" in this direction.


Farid Hajji -- Unix Systems and Network Admin | Phone: +49-2131-67-555
Broicherdorfstr. 83, D-41564 Kaarst, Germany  | farid.hajji@ob.kamp.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - -
Murphy's Law fails only when you try to demonstrate it, and thus succeeds.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]