On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 01:23:55PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote: > Bruno Haible <[email protected]> writes: > > > 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. > > Thank you both for your input. > > I'll bring it up on the libc-alpha list later today. Thankfully it was > caught on Rawhide before a new glibc release.
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1953 tracks the request for clarification from the Austin Group (may take several weeks). -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. Virtualization: qemu.org | libguestfs.org
