This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Wish for 2002 ...

Roland McGrath <> writes:

> > If you think the answer is "obviously not" then why do we have gets and
> > getwd?
> Those interfaces existed and were in use at the time GNU libc was
> written.  That is why.  Programs predating GNU libc used them and
> lacking them would break source backward compatibility.  That is not
> true of any recent invention.  Programs using (e.g.) strlcpy et al
> already are not portable to many extant systems, so continuing their
> lack does not impose new difficulties.

Sure they do impose new difficulties!

Once we could say "BSD programs compile under glibc with no
library-related incompatibilities" and "A goal of glibc is to function
as a replacement for the system library".

With deviations like this, we lose the ability to say either of those
two statements.  I contend that statements like those are the whole
reason for caring about standards in the first place.

There is more reason for tracking BSD's innovations than for tracking
XOpen's and Posix's, for the simple reason that when we track a BSD
innovation we automatically gain a slight increment in portability,
but tracking Xopen or Posix doesn't give any portability until some
other system does the same.  Of course we should track XOpen and
Posix, but likewise, and even more so, we should track BSD.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]