On Sat, 2016-05-28 at 23:53 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > > > secure_getenv() > > has no (known to me) meaning for windows, and that's why I'd expect > > that call there to behave as getenv(). > I'm afraid that this doesn't answer my question. I was asking why the > behavior > you expect would be more useful in practice than Gnulib's current > behavior. (If > secure_getenv has no known meaning for MS-Windows, then any > implementation of it > should be "correct" and there should be no reason to change from the > current > behavior. :-)
Let me reverse the question and ask you how do would you expect a library to use getenv in a portable way? In linux/freebsd it has to use secure_getenv() instead of getenv to prevent issues with setuid programs. In windows since there is no secure_getenv(), getenv() must be used. How would you expect gnulib to be used in that case? Should the library handle the portability, or gnulib? regards, Nikos
