From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 17 18:59:37 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090BD16A41F for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:59:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from b.candler@pobox.com) Received: from thorn.pobox.com (vds.fauxbox.com [208.210.124.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9203043D46 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:59:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from b.candler@pobox.com) Received: from thorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thorn.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C836AC; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mappit.local.linnet.org (212-74-113-67.static.dsl.as9105.com [212.74.113.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by thorn.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9A41FE7; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by mappit.local.linnet.org with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1EnhH9-0008xy-Pu; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:59:23 +0000 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:59:23 +0000 From: Brian Candler To: Luigi Rizzo Message-ID: <20051217185923.GB34401@uk.tiscali.com> References: <20051217030513.A82342@xorpc.icir.org> <24068.1134818291@critter.freebsd.dk> <20051217032706.A82898@xorpc.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051217032706.A82898@xorpc.icir.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: About extensible prinf(3), a slightly long X-mas card X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:59:37 -0000 On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:27:06AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > are you saying that if you link a program that uses these extensions > with glibc it behaves as expected ? Then the portability issue > would disappear (i.e. moves elsewhere where hopefully it has been > solved already). Hmm, but that's easier said than done - e.g. I don't see glibc in ports.