Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:09:28 +0530 From: Sujit K M <kmsujit@gmail.com> To: Zachary Loafman <zml@freebsd.org> Cc: steven.danneman@isilon.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pthread_setugid_np Message-ID: <74fe56020905272039h6aed0724u38dbc25d0a1be6a7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090528024640.GC9388@isilon.com> References: <20090528000147.GB3704@isilon.com> <74fe56020905271931l4c8d4677h3bbcce6d8c8a8605@mail.gmail.com> <20090528024640.GC9388@isilon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
These are posix unix standards that you are going to be implementing. So if you are talking of only taking the interfaces, why is there any need to have objections. By the way these are a part of specification that austin group maintains at http://www.opengroup.org/certification/ On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Zachary Loafman <zml@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:01:26AM +0530, Sujit K M wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Zachary Loafman <zml@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/bsd/kern/kern_prot.c?v=xnu-1228 >> > (see settid and setgroups1) >> >> How about the licensing. Darwin was open source under Apple's public >> license, but no longer. Or is it Mach you are taking about? > > I'm not proposing porting the code directly, I'm merely asking whether > the API and associated semantics are acceptable. It would be fairly > straightforward for us to write a unit test that could run on both > FreeBSD and OS X after this exercise. > > -- > Zach Loafman | Staff Engineer | Isilon Systems >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?74fe56020905272039h6aed0724u38dbc25d0a1be6a7>