> Am 29.03.2017 um 03:05 schrieb Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <[email protected]>: > > Gleydson Soares <[email protected]> writes: > >>> If upstream has an autoconf-like mechanism, better wrap this in >>> #ifdef HAVE_PLEDGE statements. If not, better keep local patches, at >>> least we can easily keep track of them. >> >> sure, meanwhile we should also send it upstream and protecting these >> calls by adding #ifdef is ok to make consistency with other suckless >> tools. ii and sic pledge() patches have been merged: >> http://git.suckless.org/ii/commit/?id=584290f2642eeacbe1b24e7174e49139d6787252 >> http://git.suckless.org/sic/commit/?id=9bb34de449c8f22d869a6f3794107ed25d37c7c1 > > eww... > > Making it consistent with existing bad practices is not a good thing. > People should check for features like "does this OS provide pledge?" > instead of dumb OS checks. This really feels like the 80's.
suckless.org community is different. They seem to like the 80s ;) They will likely never add any automatic feature checks. > The approach used in the commits above is just this, bad practices, and > I don't feel like we should encourage it by sending similar patches. This is ports not base. Upstream has the right to decide on coding style and practice. Spreading wider usage of pledge() is a good thing, IMHO. > -- > jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE >
