Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 04:24:46PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote:
> > > handle big ones. You surely want to add such garbage to autoconf/automake
> > > rulesets, don't you?

> > ???  It is already there, since all the major players do it this way.

> Sure,
> CXXLAGS="-DSOME_LARGE_FILE_MACRO" CFLAGS="-DSOME_LARGE_FILE_MACRO" ./configure
> Great! And if some sub-library has (not) been using the flag while you did
> (not), the stuff that you will get after hours of configure/make process
> is just garbage. It works as long as _everybody_ is either ignoring the
> flag or _everybody_ is using it.
> Why would I want to duplicate all those problems on OS/2?

Because doing it any other way leads to yet more trouble.

> > Since the program in question has no way to get a uid which is !=0,
> > there is no need to do anything else to port it.

> There are some multi-user additions being developped, so setuid might well
> be able to get a uid != 0 in the not so distant future.

???  We were discussing *existing* programs, did not we?

> > Yes, bug-for-bug compatibility is a bad target; and 0.1% of programs
> > will break no matter how careful you are.  But numbers matter; on many
> > systems LIBPATHSTRICT will help, and given a very few failing
> > programs, a wrapper is a viable solution.

> What good is LIBPATHSTRICT if DLL's with different names are used anyway?

???  This whole discussion is about making old programs work better
without recompile (by maintaining EMX again).  Using DLLs with
different names is an orthogonal topic.

> Actually, trying to use it on a larger scale for UnixOS/2, the biggest
> problem was software already containing own workarounds for stuff missing
> in EMX, so one ends up with duplicate symbols (e.g. setuid and various
> others). Patching e.g. perl accordingly is a minor problem, but people
> tend to not want patching working stuff...

How many packages (in percents) worked out-of-the-box?

Thanks,
Ilya