Re: [gentoo-dev] have_NPTL proposal/question

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 12 May 2005 08:58 am, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:20 pm, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >>what we have:
> >>At the moment have_NPTL is defined in eclass/eutils.eclass, it compile a
> >>small test program to check if glibc have nptl support.
> >
> >hasnt this been outgrown ?  people should `use nptl` now i think
>
> yes and no,
> no, 2005.0 still default to -ntpl and -ntplonly
> yes, it's used only by mono project ebuilds (grep has spoken)

so what if 2005.0 defaults to -nptl and -nptlonly ?  you're trying to decide 
if you should apply a nptl workaround or not ?  USE=nptl makes sense

if mono is the only thing [ab]using have_NPTL, then maybe i'll bug 
latexer/dotnet guys and see why they cant utilize USE=nptl

> >>there are drawbacks on the use of getconfig (that come with glibc) ?
> >>Maybe it's not supported from *libc ?
> >
> >well i'd point out that glibc is the only libc atm to implement NPTL ...
> > but then i'd point out someone is working on it for uClibc ...
> >-mike
>
> mmh ok, btw all variant of glibc had getconf ?

uClibc isnt a 'glibc variant', but to answer your question, getconf is a 
glibc-ism
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list