[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: uptime (coreutils)
From: |
Roland McGrath |
Subject: |
Re: uptime (coreutils) |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:48:18 -0500 (EST) |
> > We probably could have a libhurd.
>
> Eek, no. libc.
I think it eases life all around not to throw new things into libc.
libutil perhaps. Other new libraries that have OS-independent interface
are fine too. For new interfaces that will be Hurd-specific, some lib in
the hurd tree is the right thing.
- uptime (coreutils), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/03/13
- Re: uptime (coreutils), James Morrison, 2004/03/13
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/03/13
- Re: uptime (coreutils), James Morrison, 2004/03/13
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2004/03/14
- Re: uptime (coreutils),
Roland McGrath <=
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2004/03/14
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Roland McGrath, 2004/03/14
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2004/03/14
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Roland McGrath, 2004/03/14
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2004/03/14
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Roland McGrath, 2004/03/14
- Re: uptime (coreutils), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2004/03/14
Re: uptime (coreutils), Roland McGrath, 2004/03/14
Re: uptime (coreutils), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2004/03/14