Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:41:10PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote:
> > >   a) I know of no issue with 2.8.1 + dmake (but of course, this may be
> > >         just ignorance).
> >
> > The gcc version is more or less irrelevant as long as we're talking
> > about C, so 2.8.1 is okay. Whether we want dmake should be discussed.
> 
> I see no need for a discussion.  dmake vs make is *orthogonal* to bug
> fixes and enhancements.  Using portable constructs is the best; I do
> not see any reason to *discuss* an update to portable makefiles.
> 
> But only *when* such an update is made available.  It is not a
> prerequisite.  The situation is tolerable without such an update.  The
> situation is fine with such an update.

I see. Although some people think there should be an update nobody
is willing to do so. ;-)
So we agree that want to start with submitting bugfixes before we do
the big step - adding new features/functions?


> Is there anything else to discuss?  ;-)

Sure. :-)

- Who will run the CVS server?
- Which mailing list do we want to use to discuss the patches?
  The emx list seems to be quite empty now. Maybe we can revive
  it for that purpose.
- Which macros do we want support to control the header files?
  I mean things like _POSIX_SOURCE, _LARGEFILE_SOURCE, _ISO_XXX
  and _EMX_OLD_API versus _EMX_NEW_API (or whatever).
- Which new features/functions do we want to add directly into
  the emx import libraries and which ones do we want to put
  into seperate import libraries (e.g. regex to avoid name clashes)?
- When do we want to start?


Bye,
Andreas