[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250127152534.GR10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:25:34 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: enh <enh@...gle.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Aditya Kumar <appujee@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: fts.h
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:54:41PM -0500, enh wrote:
> https://wiki.musl-libc.org/faq says "If glibc bug 15838 is fixed by
> adding an fts64 interface in glibc, we could consider supporting it
> with a matching ABI in musl, but it seems more likely that glibc will
> just deprecate this interface", but that bug _was_ fixed in 2015 for
> glibc 2.23...
I wonder when that text was written. While we could certainly consider
it, lack of any apparent need so far suggests that it wouldn't meet
the modern criteria for inclusion in musl.
The main motivation I could potentially see flipping this is if there
are a significant number of programs shipping their own (e.g. gnulib?)
versions of fts, that would save significant code-duplication disk
space (or get better behavior of some sort) if using a shared copy in
libc.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
