From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1044 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Reuben Thomas Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: printf POSIX compliance Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:24:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20120608144423.GN163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120608145519.GP163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120608150618.GB17860@port70.net> <4FD22C6C.5040704@barfooze.de> <20120608193357.40fb538d@newbook> <20120609024556.GY163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120609125854.GC17860@port70.net> <20120609211137.GZ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339277065 31554 80.91.229.3 (9 Jun 2012 21:24:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:24:25 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1045-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Jun 09 23:24:24 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SdT8v-0001GA-R7 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 23:24:21 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3399 invoked by uid 550); 9 Jun 2012 21:24:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 3388 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2012 21:24:21 -0000 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=fcoIywV/JQYprsG6KqgGMomZr5k9ohgta//ViSJZtmk=; b=aahFRLKcyluNVgh6V/b8+XVJIKe95J3LkrY6cl0iA3z9AtiAY16quQy7itPSg6XXDk verXxcGcCmauV3me/cDkde80KxxJs/nKZj/4Cs0LBKtq8kibLfqT4yHFxKOIMwSkdDh8 +n/KDSrBw0AAZ4/Jp5IPs3pYeUGE9Vb7wGF+MVw9DczfXb6Y07XgpwsO1vb4V/7GM9L3 UjDBNx9Qr7HGH2nfOyTSffq9ZYOXl0ktjL5W2NPB4XuHfDs4T4nhOQA321S4j9RLWDjp ktQtcEXL17VhFi2W33zRzWm5+NbZYE2XMUTtJfDJH/zbysC2lWMsvqv98T0vsZDqMGos upFw== In-Reply-To: <20120609211137.GZ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQljJLs7el/xtQJ+Gha42F/WmTFaMZCtNGw+smNm3Ps0Ht7Ur12IMWIXkFpRRFlg73hXv2ci Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1044 Archived-At: On 9 June 2012 22:11, Rich Felker wrote: [Much interesting discussion] I think all of this discussion raises perhaps the most important point, which is that many of the underlying motivations for gnulib and musl is the same. Personally, the best thing about gnulib for me is that it essentially provides a sort of "libposix": I can write to standards, and gnulib picks up the slack on real systems. That's similar to musl's approach of "provide a working libc you can use anywhere". While I suspect that fundamentally the two projects will continue, with good reason, to go their own way, it'd be really good to see co-operation to the extent that is practical, so that for example more software can build with either approach, and in particular, that the two projects can happily co-exist, so that hackers like myself can spend more time writing software to standards and less time worrying about bugs in the code on which we rely, whether system code, or efforts like gnulib and musl to fill in the gaps without the pain and slowness of involving vendors (who of necessity must be relatively conservative). -- http://rrt.sc3d.org