Functions not really "compliant"

[John Kelly]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:05:54 +0100 (CET), Peter S Mazinger
<ps.m at gmx.net> wrote:


>The attached list is what coreutils' configure detects as uncompliant 
>functions ...  Should we try to get these tests pass on uClibc, so we
>don't end up w/ static versions compiled in?

If not, claiming glibc "compatibility" (1) is a stretch:

http://www.uclibc.org/downloads/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt


OTOH, the FAQ says:

>the goal of uClibc is to provide as much functionality as possible
>in a small amount of space, and it is intended primarily for embedded
>use.

So I guess it depends on whom you ask.

I would say yes, but I'm only an observer.