From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 27 19:44:08 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B73A16A41F for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:44:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5AA13C447 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:44:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5RJi4OM048393; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:44:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:43:58 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <20070627130518.M12708@thor.farley.org> In-Reply-To: <20070627130518.M12708@thor.farley.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706271543.59223.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:44:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/3542/Wed Jun 27 12:55:00 2007 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: "Sean C. Farley" Subject: Re: setenv() update in 7-CURRENT time frame X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:44:08 -0000 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. > > I thought about holding off until the branching, but enough changes have > 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. > > 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. :) > > Sean > 1. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-May/041577.html > 2. http://www.farley.org/freebsd/tmp/setenv/setenv.diff > -- > scf@FreeBSD.org Go for it. -- John Baldwin