This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"
- From: Stan Shebs <stanshebs at google dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:42:53 -0600
- Subject: Re: Should glibc stand for "GNU Core Library?"
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4f51cfd3-f522-e813-3c2e-9308e2ede60d@redhat.com>
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Every time I speak publicly about glibc I have to explain
> that it's not just an ISO C library, we have BSD APIs, GNU APIs,
> POSIX APIs, networking APIs, identity management APIs, OS APIs
> (syscall wrappers), etc.
>
> Does "The GNU C Library" encompass the whole of the project?
>
> Just like GCC went from "The GNU C Compiler" to "The GNU Compiler
> Collection"... should glibc move from "The GNU C Library" to
> something like "The GNU Core Libraries" since the project provides
> key core libraries that provide much more than just ISO C.
>
> Thoughts?
While the rationale makes sense, "core" is a rather an overloaded
term, and often taken to mean "functionality that is not really
required, but that every programmer probably wants to use", while a C
library includes functions that are specified by the definition of the
language.
Glibc is also inherently C-specific, in that proposals to add Fortran,
or Go, or Common Lisp functions are not likely to be viewed favorably.
:-)
When I describe it, I just say "C library on steroids", and people
seem generally content.
Stan