Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:53:37 +0400
From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>
Subject: Re: Environment handling broken in /bin/sh with changes to {get,set,put}env()
Message-ID: <20070704165336.GA33050@nagual.pp.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20070704173905.T67251@fledge.watson.org>
References: <1183557221.1799.16.camel@genius.i.cz> <20070704143642.GA31254@nagual.pp.ru> <20070704150312.GB31683@nagual.pp.ru> <20070704101026.O77978@thor.farley.org> <20070704173905.T67251@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 05:41:10PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > I assume I'm not the only person with this concern, but -- shouldn't we > worry that subtle changes in the semantics of very basic and widely used > system APIs might not result in more of exactly this sort of problem? This happens due to improper putenv()->setenv() transition in sh code, not directly because of semantics change. F.e. it works in my commited code long ago. Very basic and widely used system's APIs (excepting BSD one) already do proper thing. > While I'm supportive of the general aim of improving the portability of our > APIs, environmental variables are managed by large numbers of programs in > rather subtle ways--do we generally feel that this recent work will > decrease or increase the number of subtle bugs? After all, we've changed > long-standing semantics for the APIs... Just re-read old discussion. Long-standing semantics most system agree (Sun, Linux) already do that way. Only BSD doesn't. No surprise than that old BSD-specific code is full of bugs and not portable. -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070704165336.GA33050>