This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glibc article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
isn't this really kind of more of a dicdef than an encyclopedic entry? Avriette 00:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is this library licensed under the GPL? Is it, then, possible at all to compile and release proprietary programs under Linux using these standard C libraries, which I'm pretty sure are the only modern ones available under Linux? -- I am not good at running 05:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
From the package's homepage [1] it seems that the proper name is " GNU C Library". Can anyone give a good reason for me not to move this article to that name?
Nothing will be lost - not the Talk, not the history. Nothing will be broken, no links will have to be changed, Glibc will become a redirect to GNU C Library. Gronky 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've unlinked an ambigious "alpha" from the main page, but am not sure enough that it means DEC Alpha to link it. - brenneman (t) (c) 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The official Debian (and Ubuntu) package for glibc version 2 is 'libc6', which seems like a fairly major use... -- Delirium 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Glibc -- how do you pronounce this??
anyone know any more about it? who wrote it? what license was it under? why did people preffer glibc? Plugwash 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I do hope f/ a disambiguation-list, of various related initialisms, f/ ignorami, such as myself.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue rather strongly against that description. OpenEmbedded (on which OM and Fam are based) does not require (and commonly) GNU tools at all. If you use the Qtopia/OPIE version then there is no glibc required either. We can't call a distribution GNU/Linux if its not based on GNU at all - no matter the argument. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
History section could be improved by adding major version numbers and the date they were released and perhaps a note about the major features in the new version. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that applications that run on Linux typically use glibc. But what about the Linux kernel itself? Does it use glibc? I've been told that glibc doesn't work for "standalone applications" such as the Linux kernel. I hear that "standalone applications" require a library that supports standalone applications [4], a library such as newlib. Is this true? Or a misconception common enough that this article needs to directly confront? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
memcpy()
, tolower()
, and INT_MAX
--
search for "memcpy" in the Linux kernel,
search for "tolower" in the Linux kernel, and
search for "INT_MAX" in the Linux kernel.Someone with more knowledge about this than me could maybe add this information/link to the article. Basically, glibc is really free software since August 18, 2010. -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this shall be mentioned in the version history comments. -- RokerHRO ( talk) 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The GNU C Library is LGPL licensed. Part of the LGPL is this section:
If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling it.
Just as with the Qt library (see https://www.qt.io/faq section 3.7), this means that every application that uses the GNU C Library, including proprietary products, needs to provide complete object files to end users. But this cannot be true, because the GNU C Library is statically linked into any commercial product that has been compiled with the GNU compiler suite. What am I missing here?
As a side node, it makes no difference if you link statically or dynamically - you always are in need to provide everything so the end user can re-link the final product.
-- pluckerwank ( talk) 11:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
please reinstate the "adoption" column in the table of versions, it was extremely useful 5.90.164.175 ( talk) 19:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glibc article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
isn't this really kind of more of a dicdef than an encyclopedic entry? Avriette 00:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is this library licensed under the GPL? Is it, then, possible at all to compile and release proprietary programs under Linux using these standard C libraries, which I'm pretty sure are the only modern ones available under Linux? -- I am not good at running 05:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
From the package's homepage [1] it seems that the proper name is " GNU C Library". Can anyone give a good reason for me not to move this article to that name?
Nothing will be lost - not the Talk, not the history. Nothing will be broken, no links will have to be changed, Glibc will become a redirect to GNU C Library. Gronky 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've unlinked an ambigious "alpha" from the main page, but am not sure enough that it means DEC Alpha to link it. - brenneman (t) (c) 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The official Debian (and Ubuntu) package for glibc version 2 is 'libc6', which seems like a fairly major use... -- Delirium 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Glibc -- how do you pronounce this??
anyone know any more about it? who wrote it? what license was it under? why did people preffer glibc? Plugwash 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I do hope f/ a disambiguation-list, of various related initialisms, f/ ignorami, such as myself.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue rather strongly against that description. OpenEmbedded (on which OM and Fam are based) does not require (and commonly) GNU tools at all. If you use the Qtopia/OPIE version then there is no glibc required either. We can't call a distribution GNU/Linux if its not based on GNU at all - no matter the argument. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
History section could be improved by adding major version numbers and the date they were released and perhaps a note about the major features in the new version. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that applications that run on Linux typically use glibc. But what about the Linux kernel itself? Does it use glibc? I've been told that glibc doesn't work for "standalone applications" such as the Linux kernel. I hear that "standalone applications" require a library that supports standalone applications [4], a library such as newlib. Is this true? Or a misconception common enough that this article needs to directly confront? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
memcpy()
, tolower()
, and INT_MAX
--
search for "memcpy" in the Linux kernel,
search for "tolower" in the Linux kernel, and
search for "INT_MAX" in the Linux kernel.Someone with more knowledge about this than me could maybe add this information/link to the article. Basically, glibc is really free software since August 18, 2010. -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this shall be mentioned in the version history comments. -- RokerHRO ( talk) 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The GNU C Library is LGPL licensed. Part of the LGPL is this section:
If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling it.
Just as with the Qt library (see https://www.qt.io/faq section 3.7), this means that every application that uses the GNU C Library, including proprietary products, needs to provide complete object files to end users. But this cannot be true, because the GNU C Library is statically linked into any commercial product that has been compiled with the GNU compiler suite. What am I missing here?
As a side node, it makes no difference if you link statically or dynamically - you always are in need to provide everything so the end user can re-link the final product.
-- pluckerwank ( talk) 11:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
please reinstate the "adoption" column in the table of versions, it was extremely useful 5.90.164.175 ( talk) 19:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)