_ATFILE_SOURCE Obsoletion

[Rical Jasan]

On 10/18/2017 02:41 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 18 2017, Rical Jasan <ricaljasan@pacific.net> wrote:
> 
>> Does it really serve a useful purpose to broaden the definition of
>> _ATFILE_SOURCE?  I understand the desire to cease support of historical
>> artifacts, but I would rather remove support entirely than merely change
>> the definition.  While POSIX.1-2008 may imply __USE_ATFILE,
>> _ATFILE_SOURCE does not necessarily imply all of POSIX.1-2008.
> 
> Is _ATFILE_SOURCE actually used in the wild in the strict sense?

It is prevalent enough to make determining that an ordeal.  There are
roughly 50 packages on https://codesearch.debian.net/ that use it.
Whether any use it in a context that doesn't expect or requires
_POSIX_C_SOURCE to not be at least 200809L, is practically an audit.

Rical