Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:16:26PM -0500, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> > Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > What's so religious about this? If I don't want to use the PAM library,
> > > > I don't want my software to be linked against it.
> > > 
> > > Well, the same argument could be used againt the nis or hesiod libraries
> > > currently part of libc.
> > 
> > Yes, and libc is also too bloated for some people. Hence the projects
> > such as dietlibc and ulibc. I would love to see dietlibc ported to *BSD.
> 
> Our libc is already something like a eighth the size of the glibc used in
> most Linux distributions.  Do you actually know anything about any of
> what you're ranting about, or are you just ranting for the sake of ranting?

I didn't say NetBSD's libc was extremely large. dietlibc is still
smaller and has its uses. I didn't suggest using dietlibc instead of
NetBSD's libc in the distribution.