Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 16:26:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305051625570.27399-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20030505231837.GA44533@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 May 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 18:11:35 -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > applications that (IMHO most legitimately, some not) define symbols > > that are technically in some standard's space, such as `snprintf', > > `strlcpy', `accept', `close', ... ? ``Fix'' them all? Throw them > > away? > > Fix them all. It is as easy as putting > #define printf myprintf > somewhere into headers or even into CC flags. When this task is spreaded > among corresponding ports maintainers, the number for each of them will be > not too big. > > > What about applications that are already compiled? > > Leave them as is. I mean linker time error, not runtime. > > > I think such fascism would result in us behaving in a very un-UNIX > > fashion. If Linux had a clash they would fix the application software in a flash.. > > And I think just opposite. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0305051625570.27399-100000>