On 07/18/14 13:45, Isaac Dunham wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 08:24:07AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> >> On 07/17/14 08:12, Rob Landley wrote:> On 07/17/14 00:58, technosaurus wrote: >>>> I think this is the same as daemonize() in toybox/lib. Should daemonize >>>> just be defined to daemon(0,0) or is there a reason for it? >>> >>> daemon() isn't posix, so I have to figure out if it's best to >>> reimplement it for portability, or just stick with the libc function we >>> inherited from BSD and wait for the standard to catch up. In the >>> meantime, it's in lib/pending.c for the same reason toys/pending exists, >>> as toys/pending/README says this stuff needs further review. >>> > daemon() was removed for SUSv2; glibc makes it available if > _XOPEN_SOURCE < 500 or if _BSD_SOURCE is defined (which includes the default). > > Recent OS X versions (>10.5) mark daemon() as deprecated, and use of it there > may cause an FTBFS. Everywhere else (at least on Linux and *BSD), daemon() > is supported and widely used. > > glibc, musl, klibc, bionic, presumably olibc: standard; > uclibc, newlib?: optional; > dietlibc: in -lcompat > > So if we're still targetting "Linux, and maybe eventually BSD," use daemon().
Done. :) Thanks, Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
