Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Henry Sobotka wrote:

> I agree with Stefan's proposal that we start with EMX

I wonder if waiting for InnoTek's libc and starting with that wouldn't
be an easier approach. Some of the things I hear sound rather good, though
others don't really, but to form an opinion we'd probably really have to
have a look at it...

> It might also be worth creating a development branch from the outset,
> and applying the patches to it. Then, whenever people feel there's
> enough substance to warrant a release, merge with the trunk and deliver
> a stable runtime.

Sounds like a good idea, though it seems a bit unusual (to me at least) to
do it that way round. 
 
> For the build system, I suggest sticking with it as is for now, and
> converting to GNU make in two stages: 1) translate the dmakese into
> gmakese; 2) hack the GNU makefiles into the build system we want. This
> way any lack of progress with the build system won't impede development
> of the library's contents.

Sounds very good. Also that enables a nice separation of tasks, i.e. if
somebody is working on makefiles, he won't necessarily be bothered with
bugs in the evolving C code...

	Regards,
		Stefan
-- 
Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.