getgrouplist() and replacement ?
Dan Fandrich
dan at coneharvesters.com
Sun Nov 8 07:57:40 UTC 2009
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 04:04:00PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> Since you asked, my thoughts are "oh please no". Let's not open this can of
> worms. Busybox is not a C library, it's not a kernel, and those are NOT OUR
> JOB.
I agree that we shouldn't be reimplementing gnulib, but on the other hand
busybox is expected to run on a variety of systems. I don't think it
should be an issue supplying replacement functions for the handful of
nonportable functions that have been identified.
> This strikes me as a case where busybox not only can say no, but _needs_ to.
> If the project want to avoid using extensions, and eliminate existing uses of
> them, that's a defensible position. If the project wants to document our
> requirements (SUSv4 plus X and Y and Z extensions), that's' fine too. But
> reinventing the C library and making this project's problem to maintain? Erik
> kept uClibc a separate project for a _reason_, and we _do_ work with that...
I think it's a good idea that Busybox documents the requirements that it
expects, but I don't think eliminating some of the useful APIs it's using
is necessarily a step forward.
>>> Dan
--
http://www.MoveAnnouncer.com The web change of address service
Let webmasters know that your web site has moved
More information about the busybox
mailing list