M. Warner Losh
imp at bsdimp.com
Wed May 2 16:29:45 UTC 2007
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@
More information about the freebsd-current