From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 1 19:28:49 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A3E16A40B for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 19:28:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Received: from mail.farley.org (farley.org [67.64.95.201]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB9413C44C for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 19:28:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Received: from thor.farley.org (thor.farley.org [192.168.1.5]) by mail.farley.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l41J8hG6048392 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 14:08:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from sean-freebsd@farley.org) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:07:03 -0500 (CDT) From: "Sean C. Farley" To: current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20070501160645.GA9333@nagual.pp.ru> Message-ID: <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> References: <20070501003935.GA1043@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501083009.GA4627@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501160645.GA9333@nagual.pp.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN (was Re: HEADS UP: putenv, setenv, unsetenv, getenv changes) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:28:49 -0000 On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrey Chernov wrote: > All backed out. > > Not because I admit they are technically wrong and not because of bug > reports (I receive nothing). But because I surprisingly meets so > strong opposition and resistance so lost any desire to continue that. > > Anyone who interested in POSIX can dig out what changes and how > through cvs diffs. I am the one writing a replacement for the *env() functions. I have a BSD (mostly the same except unsetenv() returns an int) version and a POSIX version. Questions for developers to help me proceed: 1. Would POSIX or BSD be preferred? By POSIX, I do not necessarily mean completely POSIX. It can be some shade of gray. For example, I added some checking to putenv() that is not mentioned in the POSIX spec but makes it closer to setenv() in its errors. 2. Would a series of stages to move from BSD to POSIX be acceptable/desired? This is to avoid POSIX from overwhelming people. 3. How about dropping putenv() altogether? :) putenv() is ugly. My changes currently prevent setenv() from leaking like a sieve, so the need for putenv() should not be as necessary. It could also be that shade of gray where putenv() stayed the way it is (wrapper around setenv()) while the rest can be POSIX. Sean -- sean-freebsd@farley.org