Bug#52373: Wishlist bug?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 01:32:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:40:14 -0500,
> H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > Should this bug be downgraded to wishlist? The bug submitter did say "it
> > would be useful if ...". Moreover, according to glibc info docs:
> >
> > - Macro: int EPIPE
> > Broken pipe; there is no process reading from the other end of a
> > pipe. Every library function that returns this error code also
> > generates a `SIGPIPE' signal; this signal terminates the program
> > if not handled or blocked. Thus, your program will never actually
> > see `EPIPE' unless it has handled or blocked `SIGPIPE'.
> >
> > So the two seems to be quite related to each other, and I don't see any
> > compelling reason to distinguish between error messages generated by
> > either one. Sounds very much like wishlist to me.
>
> I agree.
>
> SIGPIPE is one of signals, and EPIPE is one of error numbers. The
> message "Broken pipe" is the result of SIGPIPE, and its error number.
> I think there is no merit to distinguish them. Moreover, how to
> change the message between the two? It's difficult.
For what it's worth, I remember Owen talking about this problem back in
1999. He was trying to develop a "guru" locale which simply printed the
error or signal name - that is, "EPIPE" or "SIGPIPE" - rather than an
explanatory message. This can't be done correctly when the error
messages for EPIPE and SIGPIPE are the same, because the gettext msgid
is keyed on the description, not the error or signal name.
> So I think it's not bug, it's not wishlist item. I close this bug.
I think it's a valid wishlist item and should be reopened as such, even
if it may be difficult to fix.
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: