svn commit: r198781 - head/lib/libc/sys

[Doug Barton]

Max Laier wrote:
> On Monday 02 November 2009 19:20:19 Colin Percival wrote:
>> Robert Watson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Colin Percival wrote:
>>>>  Attempt to reduce accidental foot-shooting by pointing out that
>>>>  accept(2)ed sockets do not necessarily inherit O_NONBLOCK from
>>>>  listening sockets on non-FreeBSD platforms.
>>> I wonder how much trouble we should go to to document bugs in other
>>> systems as non-portabilities for features that work in our system.
>> I don't think there's any simple rule to apply here except "use common
>> sense".  One can argue that FreeBSD man pages exist for the purpose of
>> documenting FreeBSD; but I'd also like to think that FreeBSD is a good
>> development platform for writing portable applications, so alerting our
>> users to potentially non-portable code certainly has some value.  (And
> 
> +1 ... FreeBSD is such a great development platform specifically because of 
> the complete man page collection.  I'd argue, however, that we should keep the 
> portability notes to the fact that there might be a difference - without going 
> into too much detail what/where and why that difference is.  In addition, the 
> more detail we add, the more likely it is that the information grows stale

FWIW I agree here. Portability notes == good, details == bad; although
I would include enough information in the notes so that an interested
party can find the appropriate external reference(s).


Doug

-- 

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/