Hi Eric, > > What is the semantic of fclose() that you want to test? > > Basically, you have two possible behaviours of fclose(), one is probably > > stricter POSIX compliant than the other. > > 1. fclose alone - guarantee that fdopen(sockfd) can be fclose'd > 2. fclose + fflush - guarantee that fclose(stdin) properly positions the > file on seekable input
OK, that's how it's documented now, now that the dependency from fflush to fclose is dropped. > if we just relicense fflush to be LGPLv2+, then > fclose can depend on fflush to begin with, and always solve both > problems at once, at which point I don't see the need for an fflush-strict. Yes, this would be very reasonable. Few users would want only the halfway fixed fclose(). Can we relax the license of 'fflush' and its dependency 'fpurge' from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2+? lib/fflush.c - needs the permission of you, me, and Jim. lib/fpurge.c - needs the permission of you and me. I agree to relax these two modules to LGPLv2+. Bruno -- In memoriam Peter van Pels <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Pels>
