> From: [email protected] (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=A9r=C3=A9mie_Courr=C3=A8ges-Anglas?=) > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:51:37 +0200 > > "Todd C. Miller" <[email protected]> writes: > > > I have no objection to this but I don't think the System-V setpgrp() > > API belongs in compat-43. We can just move it to gen/setpgrp.c. > > > > Like Ted says, we should ready the source tree first by using > > setpgid(). However, all the uses of setpgrp() in the tree are the > > equivalent of: > > > > setpgrp(0, getpid()); > > > > which could be replaced more simply by: > > > > setpgid(0, 0); > > I agree that the source tree should use setpgid(). > > However I don't think that changing our setpgrp definition would bring > much (any?) benefit. The mismatch here between SysV and BSD is known > since a long time, and I bet that a bunch of stuff in ports will use the > BSD idiom inside simple #ifdef BSD checks. I have no idea right now of > the number of ports that would be affected, but the efforts spent by > porters on this issue should considered.
Note that the SysV version of setpgrp is marked as an XSI extension in the combined POSIX and X/Open specification. As such it isn't actually part of POSIX and isn't needed for POSIX compliance.
