| |||||||||||||
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatibleThat's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatiblePosted May 22, 2009 10:59 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458)In reply to: That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible by nix Parent article: EGLIBC: Not a fork, but a glibc distribution
I specifically stated that the chain of events was unlikely to be chronological. :)
I didn't know it was McGrath that implemented them, but it doesn't change the fact that Drepper is (IMO) well within his right to say that he does not wish to waste his time by partaking in the joke, and when people again and again try to force him to do so, he is well within his right be grumpy.
The guys that keep pushing the patch are like some nerds I know, who keep making jokes about something very nerdish, e.g. phasers or VAX systems, in a group of people completely indifferent to the subject. Nobody gets the joke, nobody laughs, but they keep pushing the joke, trying to explain why it's funny instead of just dropping it.
(Log in to post comments)
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible Posted May 23, 2009 9:04 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Er, they're perfectionists. They want strfry(), as long as it's there, to
be as good as it can be. Having a function that's both a joke *and* broken would be worse yet. Ulrich is a perfectionist too, but a curiously selective one: he only cares that the parts of glibc that he uses or that someone's paying him for are perfect. The rest (unusual ports, locales, POSIX functions he dislikes) can go hang.
Personally I think that's a rather discreditable attitude in a maintainer,
|
|||||||||||||