Eric Blake <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 01:23:55PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote: >> 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. > > https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1953 tracks the request > for clarification from the Austin Group (may take several weeks).
Great! I was hoping you would handle that, since I am less familiar with the Austin Group bug reporting format. I'll reference it in my libc-alpha mail in case we want to wait for feedback there. Thanks, Collin
