getgrouplist() and replacement ?

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 08 November 2009 01:22:53 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
>  Rob> Since you asked, my thoughts are "oh please no".  Let's not open
>  Rob> this can of worms.  Busybox is not a C library, it's not a kernel,
>  Rob> and those are NOT OUR JOB.
>
> Agree.
>
>  Rob> I am reminded that buildroot started life as a toolchain builder
>  Rob> and uClibc test harness, but turned into a half-assed Linux distro
>  Rob> with dozens of packages it had to maintain because they couldn't
>  Rob> clearly state where the boundaries of the project were and thus
>  Rob> say "no" to eternal bloat.
>
> I would more say that our focus has changed away from toolchain
> building.

Agreed.

> We're working towards better supporting external toolchains
> (and crosstool-ng in particular), and long term - deprecating the
> internal toolchains.

Five years on the buildroot project achieved its own identity, and even 
started having releases, yes.  After uClibc lost its maintainer and most of 
its senior developers, and spent several years more or less stagnant.

> Similary, the external toolchains may be glibc/eglibc based instead of
> uclibc.

Yes.  Which makes the years buildroot spent suppressing uClibc development (to 
the point where attempts to ask uClibc questions on the uClibc list actually 
seemed off-topic) seem even more regrettable.

Water under the bridge.  I'm just pointing out that having a "small side 
project as part of this one", if not _really_ carefully handled, is a 
dangerous thing for the host project the new one buds off of.

Rob 
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds