This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/6] Implement the %OB specifier - alternative month names (bug 10871)
- From: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 01:54:15 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/6] Implement the %OB specifier - alternative month names (bug 10871)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1155243857 dot 420233 dot 60a90901-4334-4cea-aa99-f76884316a10 dot open-xchange at poczta dot nazwa dot pl> <20160329143132 dot GA28928 at altlinux dot org> <666336576 dot 426212 dot 9ea90152-1d54-4eec-8ffa-81bfd328d92b dot open-xchange at poczta dot nazwa dot pl> <20160601104220 dot GA1077 at altlinux dot org> <323322572 dot 685262 dot 92369107-bdae-4a8b-b71f-99b919bc0cf0 dot open-xchange at poczta dot nazwa dot pl> <37aa7442-e282-a3bd-a7ce-6e06aed9172a at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- Reply-to: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
2.06.2016 00:20 Paul Eggert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> [...] However, if
> glibc uses the old behavior when the application links to the old
> strftime, and the new behavior when the application links to the new
> strftime, then old executables will have the same old behavior even when
> linked to new glibc, which was Dmitry's point.
Aaah, that's it! I did not know such a feature exists. So AFAIU this
means that an executable provides to glibc some info what glibc version
it was originally compiled with and if glibc is newer it is still able
to provide the old behavior for old executables. Sounds nice, I will
have to read more about it. (Any hints, links etc. are welcome.)
> Even if the new behavior is standardized and is more likely to be what
> the user wants, there will almost surely be cases where the old behavior
> is preferable (if only to make regression tests pass :-), and the
> natural way to tell programmers about this is to say that old programs
> get the old behavior and new programs get the new one.
What if a programmer, for example an author of cal(1), just rebuilds
the unmodified source while it should be modified? Is there a way to
tell them they should at least verify their source code?
Anyway, I understand that I have to provide the old behavior for
old executables. You're welcome to provide feedback about other issues.