Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 06:03:45PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote:
> > ???  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".

I still do not understand how this supports (IMO broken) Holger's
argument that existence of such programs may hinder upgrading of
EMX-supplied functions.

> > ???  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... :-/

Well, it is not from the moment I was CC'ed (I do not subscribe to
unixos2, so it can be that the discussion was like you say before this).

Ilya