This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] manual: Remove warning in the documentation of the abort function
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, <fweimer at redhat dot com>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, <oliva at gnu dot org>, <rain1 at airmail dot cc>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 21:10:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] manual: Remove warning in the documentation of the abort function
- Ironport-sdr: lQZWhdd9Okjz9hHOZ6ZZ/TWbQczQT5eW87JznOFKR+Mk6SXGgsTAQ/s9wY3tR2uHevQWL2HPHC ZACPfaNntjPmfxxkchUrYP0w9Mthp7pHul+wYU+c0LXISC9/Pmx+Q6mVf5liSIthhiZPl2DG86 XbOQUqoxlj/GA3lMqH7PzFnSeY/ei4IE9szM8HAdw0ldHombFiBjjSXC+F05dNCRabUoSK9UUm J6dG/zxiveEVVJsNYkEfLqFdKrzgqSe/n8y8KBiaahG5IUfvk1oxE7rlMUa7eHANsB9d9BIHhB 5iA=
- Ironport-sdr: OUX68MfAGFK0kzn7BqF6of9mXHxjxq6obLiRnh6uuxnnCFYyoLchVCSC+8vbdxIgTNO9TfzWal 93uMHNIKCtCO8iYOqqTINz4f7Kyu4H6qvh4eHkHjnpPMSJeL2+MDgLeLu55szyLimPdGqEcLgA JBAgbtrj3DPwgehbR/F8ra1ngbRsLdg0wnhuDTh7O+rU9NMLkMy2GE4tVQtb9I+72iIgSyPMCQ SJND1EDhPjUWT+CpISXcgz4jTpqmqeKusXm6B6ncUc6hjikN6rLVxbXIb8WZr7gdR+/BvQJWm8 gJ8=
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <E1iHwJq-0008Gc-Qz@fencepost.gnu.org>
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Before deciding this question, there are several questions, more basic
> and general, that we need to tackle first. The answers to them will
> be the basis for this specific decision.
I think the conclusion is clear based on the answers so far; the further
general discussions might help answer other questions, but they are not
needed for this one.
This is not a tricky technical design question where the choice of an
interface now will affect large amounts of code built on top of it and we
need to take care to avoid choosing an interface that will be hard to
maintain compatibly in future, or to avoid an interface that doesn't
properly achieve its goals and will need a new interface added while
keeping the old one around as well. Nothing else depends on the details
of which particular jokes are in the manual. The glibc maintainers have
plenty of information in the past discussions to come to a conclusion now
on this issue.
For example, I think this case is clear enough that we don't need to
restart the discussion of general principles around when it is or is not
appropriate for current package maintainers to change decisions made by
previous maintainers in order to reach a conclusion to apply to this case,
even if that discussion might be helpful in other such less clear cases in
Joseph S. Myers