From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:08:41 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 153 ************************************************** Friday 18 July 2003 Number 153 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Andreas Buening 2 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Andreas Buening 3 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Steve Wendt" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:50:36 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc Stefan Neis wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > > > libc. Innotek did a lot of work, for instance starting updating header > > to FreeBSD 5.1 level. > > I don't quite understand how "FreeBSD 5.1 level" and some earlier > statements (implying that the runtime wouldn't have Unix support to the > extent of EMX in my reading) can possibly be both correct at the same > time, but this sounds really good... I also have vague memories of "no Unix support" so I'm sceptical. What's their license model? If they don't use BSD or GPL license this won't be of much help for us. Bye, Andreas **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:50:52 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc Ilya Zakharevich wrote: [snip] > If someone wants to translate the EMX docs into a more "lightweight" > format (and Perl's POD or its widespread extensions immediately comes > to mind), they are welcome. Never heard of it. > But this is an *orthogonal* target. It's not really orthogonal. If we start a new emx release we should also start to create docs in the final format. If function foo is updated then also an uptodate foo manpage (or whatever) has to be provided. This way, it might take a long time before we have a consistent set of doc files but we're on the right way. Bye, Andreas **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:11:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steve Wendt" Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:50:36 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: >I also have vague memories of "no Unix support" so I'm sceptical. >What's their license model? If they don't use BSD or GPL license >this won't be of much help for us. Considering gcc is GPL, that pretty much compels them to use that license. ----------- "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato (427-347 B.C.)