Date:Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:04:41 +0100
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20171212100441.ga32...@britannica.bec.de>
| Effectively requiring modifyable input for basename(3) is highly
| annoying and breaks legacy code.
Are you talking of just
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 07:57:58AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> The next POSIX update (issue 8 of whatever it is called in the wild) - that
> is the next "minor corrections" update, as distinct from the next major
> update, is planning on (if I follow correctly, has already decided) to
> tighten the
Date:Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:36:00 +0100
From:Edgar =?iso-8859-1?B?RnXf?=
Message-ID: <20171203113600.gl4...@trav.math.uni-bonn.de>
| Has anyone scanned NetBSD's (or pkgsrc's) codebase for such uses?
I am in the process of doing that - that's
> there might be NetBSD applications currently which are assuming
> that the input string is not modified by these functions
I'd be heavily surprised if that change wouldn't break half (OK, 10%)
the consumers, either because they call both functions on the same path
argument or because they
The next POSIX update (issue 8 of whatever it is called in the wild) - that
is the next "minor corrections" update, as distinct from the next major
update, is planning on (if I follow correctly, has already decided) to
tighten the definitions of basename(3) and dirname(3) in order to make
it