According to Eric Blake on 2/22/2010 4:29 PM: > According to Bruce Korb on 2/22/2010 3:50 PM: >>> The question, though, is whether cygwin's extension is useful enough to >>> push on all platforms. Gnulib tends to favor glibc extensions rather than >>> cygwin extensions. In other words, it is hard to justify replacing a >>> glibc function that is perfectly standards-compliant. >> >> My philosophy is slightly different. I prefer to go with whatever it is >> that makes life easier for programming to multiple platforms. > > http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11312
Unfortunately, Uli rejected it today. > > We'll see if others agree with your argument, or whether it is just > simpler to fix the caller. I'd prefer to wait for some feedback from the > glibc folks before doing anything in gnulib. Given that Uli outright rejected the proposal of supporting popen(,"rb"), does anyone else think it is worth changing gnulib to unilaterally declare that glibc's popen is deficient (perhaps by adding a new module popen-binary, so that those worried only about POSIX compliance don't have to pick up on the bloat), or is this a case where sharutils should just get used to writing popen(,O_BINARY?"rb":"r")? -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
