| 1 |
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 22:36:51 Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've just stumbled over a report of someone seemingly successfully |
| 3 |
> working with a local glibc[1]. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Comments? Reasons why this would/wouldn't work or be a good idea in a |
| 6 |
> prefix? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Regards, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Jeff |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I have been working on exactly that; I have a proof of concept implementation |
| 13 |
[1] of a version of prefix that uses its own libc like this, which has been |
| 14 |
tested more-or-less successfully by a handful of people. I'm planning on |
| 15 |
developing it into a real implementation that could potentially be merged as |
| 16 |
an option into prefix, but work on that has not yet started. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The reasons it would be a good thing include improved independence from the |
| 19 |
host system, leading to reduced platform-specific breakage and |
| 20 |
platform-specific hacks. However, it cannot completely replace the current |
| 21 |
structure, as it relies on having a libc implementation available for every |
| 22 |
platform supported by prefix, which is not the case. Hence, if merged, it |
| 23 |
will always be as an alternative to the native libc (and of course, having |
| 24 |
parallel infrastructure for both models has its own downsides). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- Ruud |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] https://github.com/redlizard/gentoo-prefix-libc |
Archives