From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 30 17:47:41 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA81A16A473; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:47:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (nagual.pp.ru [194.87.13.69]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B1A13C480; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:47:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l3UHletq083156; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:47:40 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l3UHleGG083155; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:47:40 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:47:40 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20070430174740.GB82975@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , John Baldwin , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org References: <200704301516.l3UFGJbu019162@repoman.freebsd.org> <200704301229.21190.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070430164031.GA82368@nagual.pp.ru> <200704301256.15557.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704301256.15557.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall main.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:47:42 -0000 On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:56:14PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > Ok. FWIW, this seems like a ridiculous and gross hack just to provide a > backdoor for updating the environment w/o making a fooenv() function call > (either putenv, or setenv). It rather history issue. POSIX just precisely documents how putenv was originaly implemented. BSD implementation via setenv() is later innovation which becomes incompatible with POSIX trend. -- http://ache.pp.ru/