Joerg Jung <[email protected]> writes: >> 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.
Fine, I'll just stop caring about suckless projects. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
