Eric Blake wrote: > What you are arguing, however, is that the > usage pattern that nbdkit was employing (to access the last line) > which worked in glibc prior to 2008 when POSIX tried to standardize > the glibc behavior is not portable, and therefore nbdkit has been > buggy since its use of the broken paradigm, merely because POSIX > specified something different than glibc actually implemented.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. A specification has more weight than a particular implementation, even if that implementation is glibc. And especially if that specification has been stable for 17 years. Bruno
