Well, So, at the end, even if the security aspect of the function is a matter of point of view, the compatibility/interoperatbility is the main problem, definitively. so, libbsd-compat is my friend. Cheers, JeF On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:36:14PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Mar 04, Joseph Carter wrote: > > The stated reasons that strl functions will not be included are: > > > > - They promote bad or less readable code > > - They are "inefficient BSD crap" > > - They do not enhance security in any meaningful capacity > > > > While I'm not likely to argue on the third point (except out of rampant > > paranoia that it's possible that maybe you could get a printf to feed you > > output that you as a user should not be able to see, maybe a passwd or > > something?), the other two reasons are not really reasons - they're BSD > > bashing. While I have tons of reasons to bash BSD, OpenBSD particularly, > > the strl functions are not among them. > > Silly me thought the purpose of GNU libc was to provide a superset of > the functionality of other libcs... hence the strl functions ought to > be there, if only for completeness. Otherwise, we (those of us who > think OpenBSD actually has some good code in it worth running on > Linux) have to add a silly "libbsd" again, just for compat purposes. > > Yeah, Theo is a real butthead sometimes, but this reminds me of silly > Not Invented Here bashing. > > > Chris > -- > Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ > > Instructor and Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi > 208 Deupree Hall - 662-915-5765 -- -> Jean-Francois Dive --> jef@linuxbe.org
Attachment:
pgpyOWAzKiwiR.pgp
Description: PGP signature