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