[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 17:52:45 -0500 (EST) |
> Oh, of course; those aren't system-specific libraries though. It's
> the idea of splitting libc into different system specific libraries
> that I think is a mistake.
Noone suggested that.
> I have no objection to a new generically named library for specific
> sets of tasks.
As I said, libutil might be fine for the uptime thing.
> (Of course five of the libraries in your list are all generated from
> the libc source. :)
I'm lazy.
> Except I think it's a mistake to label those "linux-specific". The
> danger of that is that as soon as it gets implemented on some other
> system, it ceases to be Linux specific.
Like I already said three times, something that can conceivably be generic
belongs in a generic place.
> Moreover, there is nothing Hurd-specific about fetch_boot_time. It
> should be implementable on any system, and is a reasonable entirely
> generic function.
That's why I made this distinction at the beginning.
- Re: uptime (coreutils), (continued)
- 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, 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 <=
- 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