Bruno Haible <[email protected]> writes: > Eric Blake wrote: >> What you are arguing, however, is that the >> usage pattern that nbdkit was employing (to access the last line) >> which worked in glibc prior to 2008 when POSIX tried to standardize >> the glibc behavior is not portable, and therefore nbdkit has been >> buggy since its use of the broken paradigm, merely because POSIX >> specified something different than glibc actually implemented. > > Yes, that's what I'm saying. A specification has more weight than a > particular implementation, even if that implementation is glibc. > And especially if that specification has been stable for 17 years.
Thank you both for your input. I'll bring it up on the libc-alpha list later today. Thankfully it was caught on Rawhide before a new glibc release. Collin
