On 09.08.2019 19:10, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 09.08.2019 19:04, Paul Goyette wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Christos Zoulas wrote: >> >>> I think we should do something right now (even for NetBSD-9) to avoid >>> causing pain upstream. Even the variadic change is an improvement. I >>> was just arguing that if we were going to make the change, let's go >>> all the way and fix it properly, but if people feel that there is a >>> chance for upstream to adopt the printflike setname_np() (I don't), >>> let's go for it. >> >> Agreed on both points: >> >> * Fix ASAP (now) > > I disagree here. > >> * It seems unlikely for upstream to adopt our current API >> > > Do you mean upstream 3rd party projects reusing our current API? This is > false as everybody that builds or targets NetBSD picks it without questions. > To put it more stronger, I have not experienced any existing 3rd party project that rejected it so far. The problem is that Darwin, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD (+ Tru64 and others) all have different API here so that code is ifdefed virtually always, unless someone builds really only for Linux (or only for Darwin or other OS), but such projects are rare. I can list 0 existing examples that rejected it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature