That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible

Posted May 23, 2009 9:07 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible by liljencrantz
Parent article: EGLIBC: Not a fork, but a glibc distribution

Er, the comment you replied to was a tongue-in-cheek joke, pointing at
aspects of Ulrich's maintainership that I really don't have any sort of
problem with (hell, I don't care much about strfry() either: if only
glibc's objects were sorted so strfry() wasn't pulled into memory on the
majority of systems... and now with the paging-prefers-executables stuff
it won't even get pushed out again.)

Did you really not see that?

That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible

Posted May 23, 2009 10:04 UTC (Sat) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link] (1 responses)

I am sorry, I did not. My bad. On the other hand, I do not think the same argument was ironic when used to motivate Debians use of eglibc.

That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible

Posted May 23, 2009 11:37 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The point isn't strfry() et al. It's that Ulrich's behaviour towards
someone trying to fix a bug in that exemplifies his behaviour towards
*anyone* trying to contribute *anything*, except if he's known them a long
time (and sometimes not even then).

I could dig up dozens of examples but it's too depressing and it's a bank
holiday here and I have two flashy new Nehalems to bring up (die, old
ten-year-outdated PIIIs! ... only thing is I'm not sure 36Gb RAM in the
two combined will be enough ;} )