Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, sean-freebsd@farley.org Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705021332020.8590@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20070502.102822.-957833022.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20070501083009.GA4627@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501160645.GA9333@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> <20070502.102822.-957833022.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2 May 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20070501135439.B36275@thor.farley.org> > "Sean C. Farley" <sean-freebsd@farley.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0705021332020.8590>