Talk:Glibc

message: isn't this really kind of more of a dicdef than an encyclopedic entry? Avriette 00:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dicdef? 

message: 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)
replies: text: LGPL. Entire properitary operating systems (BeOS, for instance) have used glibc as their main C library. Kiand 09:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covered by GPL? 

message: From the package's homepage  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)
replies: text: At that point why would you move the article?  Why not just make your additional article name the redirect and save the troublesome redirect for the talk page?  Janizary 07:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with "the troublesome redirect for the talk page".  My reason for moving the article was that the new title is correct and the old one is not.  If titles didn't matter, each page would be refered to by number and would then have redirect aliases.  One effect of the title is that it gets written in big letters across the top of the page. Gronky 15:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later today I plan to move this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alpha? 

message: Glibc -- how do you pronounce this??
:I've always heard it pronounced as: "gee lib see" (soft 'g') Gronky 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronounce 

message: 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)
replies: text: libc5 was a fork of GNU libc by the Linux developers.  They eventually gave up and went back to GNU libc.  This is way GNU libc, even though it is still on version 2.4 is often called "libc6", as it superseded libc5.  The story is in section 6 of Fear of forking.  I'll add that link to the article. Gronky 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what exactly was the linux libc5? 

message: 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.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ glibc ]][[ initialism ]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the confusion here comes from the GDE option (which is GNU based). Its an option for a PDA like interface - but its not the only one. The other is Qtopia/OPIE (which is not GNU based). You can't (afaik) build GDE on a non-glibc basis (ie with uClibc or others), but you can (and do) with OPIE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Familiar a GNU/Linux distribution? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improve history section with when major versions where released 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sun RPC code 

message: I think this shall be mentioned in the version history comments. --RokerHRO (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the support for Intel 386 was dropped? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  License requires to be able to relink derived software?