cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall main.c

[Andrey Chernov]

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 08:06:42PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> I would have expected this proposed change to get a heads-up in
> current@ first.  _Especially_ since there is a current thread in
> current@ about fixing some long-standing memory leaks in our *env()
> functions.  Implementing a major POLA violation without any warning
> whilst other changes to the same code are being discussed in one of
> the mailing lists could be seen as impolite.

I see no POLA violations from my own. 
1) POLA for those functions is well known while internal hacks can't be 
called POLA.
2) Our putenv() itself is ist originating POLA violation since 
implemented, so we just returning to original POLA.

My changes are not related to fixing some long-standing memory leaks in 
our *env() at all, I don't touch that code so can't change the same code 
as other.

> >There is no SVR4 bugs in this commit.
> 
> The SVR4 behaviour (as documented in SUSv3) is a bug.

If you mean putenv() (I see no other things which can be called SVR4 
behaviour there), it isn't BSD native function, so we must honor its 
original implementation, if we decide to provide it.

> Note that the C90 (ANSI X3.159-1989, ISO 9899:1990) does not include
> putenv() or setenv() due to the the lack of any concensus on how they
> should behave.  

I know.

> FreeBSD does not and (AFAIK) has never claimed to be to-the-letter POSIX 
> compliance by default.

See and count our manpages, namely STANDARDS section.

The question again: what isn't working currently _for_you?

-- 
http://ache.pp.ru/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/attachments/20070501/6ac314e6/attachment.pgp