Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:26:22 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall main.c Message-ID: <20070501102621.GA6002@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070501100642.GB823@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <200704301516.l3UFGJbu019162@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070430180043.GK13868@elvis.mu.org> <20070430181824.GA83415@nagual.pp.ru> <20070430225717.GA7008@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20070501000242.GA19510@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501100642.GB823@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 08:06:42PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > I would have expected this proposed change to get a heads-up in > current@ first. _Especially_ since there is a current thread in > current@ about fixing some long-standing memory leaks in our *env() > functions. Implementing a major POLA violation without any warning > whilst other changes to the same code are being discussed in one of > the mailing lists could be seen as impolite. I see no POLA violations from my own.=20 1) POLA for those functions is well known while internal hacks can't be=20 called POLA. 2) Our putenv() itself is ist originating POLA violation since=20 implemented, so we just returning to original POLA. My changes are not related to fixing some long-standing memory leaks in=20 our *env() at all, I don't touch that code so can't change the same code=20 as other. > >There is no SVR4 bugs in this commit. >=20 > The SVR4 behaviour (as documented in SUSv3) is a bug. If you mean putenv() (I see no other things which can be called SVR4=20 behaviour there), it isn't BSD native function, so we must honor its=20 original implementation, if we decide to provide it. > Note that the C90 (ANSI X3.159-1989, ISO 9899:1990) does not include > putenv() or setenv() due to the the lack of any concensus on how they > should behave. =20 I know. > FreeBSD does not and (AFAIK) has never claimed to be to-the-letter POSIX= =20 > compliance by default. See and count our manpages, namely STANDARDS section. The question again: what isn't working currently _for_you? --=20 http://ache.pp.ru/ --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGNxXNVg5YK5ZEdN0RAh2jAJ4vAHknCCV+WCXYqgIMzfH9NX40lgCeKOtP sPAdomcaEe6YIyC32iIGtQw= =Sc+j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070501102621.GA6002>