HEADS DOWN

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20070501135439.B36275 at thor.farley.org>
            "Sean C. Farley" <sean-freebsd at farley.org> 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