Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

> > 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?

So what? Since "porting" often consists of "./configure && make" there are
programs which rely on set/getuid to work on OS/2 just the same as on
Unix. Mailing lists are full of question like "what can I do to get
application xyz working, it's falling on set/getuid, strncasecmp,
whatever".

> ???  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.

No sorry. The whole discussion is about making old programs work better
by recompiling with a new libc and leaving old programs as they are.
At least that was my impression... :-/
 
> > 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?

Say 20% of the previously "fixed" ones ("broken" in terms of Posix/2),
which was all that was tested. In most instances, removing some
#ifdef __EMX__
various rubbish
#endif
was sufficient to solve the problems, two packages turned up real bugs in
Posix/2 (fixed by now).

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