From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 2 16:29:45 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 BF9AB16A402; Wed, 2 May 2007 16:29:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A3E13C468; Wed, 2 May 2007 16:29:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l42GSAKK027817; Wed, 2 May 2007 10:28:15 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:28:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20070502.102822.-957833022.imp@bsdimp.com> To: sean-freebsd@farley.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> References: <20070501083009.GA4627@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501160645.GA9333@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 02 May 2007 10:28:15 -0600 (MDT) Cc: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN 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, 02 May 2007 16:29:45 -0000 In message: <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> "Sean C. Farley" writes: : 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. These are good questions. They should likely be talked about in arch@ Warner