Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:35:24 -0400 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: setenv() update in 7-CURRENT time frame Message-ID: <1183059324.34788.60.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> In-Reply-To: <200706271543.59223.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20070627130518.M12708@thor.farley.org> <200706271543.59223.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-C91e8T19DKpTqCjWvlfH Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 15:43 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 27 June 2007 02:29:23 pm Sean C. Farley wrote: > > With the release rapidly approaching, I want to know if it would be > > better to move the setenv() (and family) API to POSIX (along with added > > memory leak restraints). For details on the changes, please see my > > posting in the current@ and ports@[1] archives. I ask arch@ since it > > involves API changes. > >=20 > > I thought about holding off until the branching, but enough changes hav= e > > rolled into CURRENT to make me think that it may be acceptable. I > > received no complaints from my postings in current@ and ports@. From > > communications with Kris Kennaway, he surmised it may affect a few old > > BSD-specific ports and checking would have to be done manually to find > > them. > >=20 > > How does the idea of applying my patch[1] to CURRENT before the branch > > is made sound? While I would prefer it to make it into this release, I > > understand if it would be best to wait. I am just looking for a > > definitive answer. If I did not ask, I would feel anxious wondering if > > it could have made it. :) > >=20 > > Sean > > 1. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-May/041577.= html > > 2. http://www.farley.org/freebsd/tmp/setenv/setenv.diff > > --=20 > > scf@FreeBSD.org >=20 > Go for it. >=20 Since the last attempt at part of this went badly for a variety of reasons I'm going to give a bit more warning than I'd normally do for a commit approval request during code freeze... :-) Sean has sent the commit request to re@ which given code freeze was the right thing to do. Last time setenv() and friends were made POSIX compliant it sort of blind-sided too many people so I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen this time. Sean's patches look reasonable to me so I'll approve the commit request in a couple of days (likely Saturday). If that's a problem speak now or forever hold your peace... :-) --=20 Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel | --=-C91e8T19DKpTqCjWvlfH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBGhA18/G14VSmup/YRAkb2AJ4kK/tt1Q+XiTZNWIHQlcteDysiyACfUMKu CyrOg4c8L+XDmKsH/FICKHQ= =RrOr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-C91e8T19DKpTqCjWvlfH--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1183059324.34788.60.camel>