Re: [Chicken-hackers] shouldn't file-close dispatch an interrupt on EINTR?

While I don't see how this would have caused an fd leak directly (one might previously have caught the exception and retried the close, no?), this seems like a fine change to me and lifts an annoying burden from the programmer. Pushed. Thanks, Jörg and Peter. Evan signature.asc Description:

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add support for sudo alternatives

Hi all, On 2016-03-27 21:03, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:11:41PM +0200, Timo Myyrä wrote: > > Here is an simple patch to add support for alternative commands than sudo. > > OpenBSD doesn't have sudo in base install so this allows chicken-install to > > work > > with OpenBSD

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Fix attempt for bug #1269 "Port or reader state corruption"

Here is a new patch for this issue. I went for the first solution for now, I suppose it’s a good enough™ fix for now. A better one should go to CHICKEN 5. >From c66052c91e1622e0b3dc10cd01fc0dacf7d9827c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kooda Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:21:43 +0100

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Add support for sudo alternatives through SUDO envvar [was: Re: [Chicken-users] Add support for sudo alternatives]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:11:41PM +0200, Timo Myyrä wrote: > Hi, > > Here is an simple patch to add support for alternative commands than sudo. > OpenBSD doesn't have sudo in base install so this allows chicken-install to > work > with OpenBSD doas (and others like it). > The idea is that if

Re: [Chicken-hackers] shouldn't file-close dispatch an interrupt on EINTR?

> This is why I dislike the posix module so much, it's so low-level that > it doesn't even bother to abstract away these things. It's C with > parentheses, except in some cases where the abstraction is so high that > it's even unlike POSIX (for example in the "process" procedures). As they say,