[uClibc]Threads question...I think...

[Tom Cameron]

Erik,
	Hello.  Thanks for the response.  I was actually being lazy
(actually...REALLY busy with other things) the night I asked that
question.  `cron` will compile against uClibc almost Right Out Of The
Box(tm).  I simply pointed it to the uClibc-generated gcc, and off it
went.  Works real smooth too.  You were correct in saying that cron
would work using fork...in fact...that's exactly what it does.  Again,
thanks.  We can add another item to that magical list of things that
compile vs. uClibc.  Now, if I could just get the devfsd stuff to go vs.
uClibc...things would be good.  I think that it actually uses some form
of threads-ness (libnsl or something like that I believe).

-Tom


Erik Andersen wrote:
> 
> On Sat Aug 25, 2001 at 10:39:45PM -0400, Tom Cameron wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >       I have recently seperated from my last employer, where I received these
> > emails, and have just got back on the list...so pardon me if I've missed
> > something in the past two or three weeks.
> >
> >       My question is: Is the reason there is no cron for uClibc/BusyBox due
> > to the fact that there is no thread support?  I am actually wondering
> 
> Nah, can be readily implemented using fork/exec.  Its just
> nobody has ever gotten around to it...
> 
> > this because I am right about to release a cut of the project I've been
> > workin on to some testers, and would like to add a few more features to
> > my system.  Additionally, is lack of threads-ness also the reason there
> > is no (x)inetd, or any other daemons?  Anyway, just wondering.  I know
> 
> again, nope.  Those can be done using fork/exec as well.
> vodz has an inetd (which I'm planning on integrating), so
> no, this is not due to threads.
> 
> > that threads support was on the way, but I figured I'd ask anyway.
> 
> On it way, but don't hold your breath while waiting,
> 
>  -Erik
> 
> --
> Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
> --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--