Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

> For example, if you have 0 "third-party C++", then your argument does
> not make sense.  Given that a "C++ library" is an oxymoron anyway, I
> do not expect you to have much more than 0.  ;-)

If you put a 1 in front of that 0, you're approximately right.
For C libraries, it's about the same (mostly XFree related), but
recompiling shouldn't be a problem if it's necessary.

> > Any prominent example of such a library would help me see the
> > problem.  I can't think of any.
> 
> No concrete example comes to my mind - though tar.exe is "very close"
> to be an example.  You have the source, but you can't recompile (due
> to an orthogonal reason to what we discuss, though).

IIRC, there are newer versions which are compilable, though missing
some esoteric feature...

	Regards,
		Stefan