Re: [patches] libdfp

[Ryan Arnold <rsa@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:35 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> A while back, you asked about hosting libdfp in the EGLIBC repository,
> but as an independent library, rather than as an EGLIBC add-on.  I'm
> sorry nobody got back to you.  I think that's because nobody knew quite
> what to say.
> 
> I'd like to understand better why making this an add-on is the wrong
> thing.  It seems like a natural fit, and my understanding is that the
> API you're implementing is part of a C TR, and therefore likely to be a
> required part of the C library in the future.  Can you explain why some
> people feel that just making it an add-on isn't the right thing?

Hi Mark,

We want to get libdfp into existing distros that use an older GLIBC or
EGLIBC and don't want to upgrade yet.

Additionally, Some GLIBC based distros are opposed to the addition of
add-ons that didn't originate in official GLIBC tree.

We feel that, as an extension to the C library, Libdfp belongs near
GLIBC/EGLIBC but as a matter of gaining adoption it needs to exist as a
standalone library until ratification of the Draft DFP ISO C Technical
Report.

Ryan S. Arnold
IBM Linux Technology Center