From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 2 17:36:40 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FDF16A404 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:36:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00F213C484 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:36:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.14.0/8.14.0/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l42HaOVF020801; Wed, 2 May 2007 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]); Wed, 02 May 2007 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20070502.102822.-957833022.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: References: <20070501083009.GA4627@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501160645.GA9333@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> <20070502.102822.-957833022.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: arch@freebsd.org, sean-freebsd@farley.org Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:36:41 -0000 On Wed, 2 May 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> > "Sean C. Farley" writes: > : > : 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. POSIX is preferred unless there are good reasons to deviate from it for specific interfaces. We are always free to add non-POSIX functions for functionality not defined by the standard. > : 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. putenv() is in POSIX. It should definitely be implemented. -- DE