Re: Rumpification (was Re: CVS commit: src/usr.sbin/envstat)

[Antti Kantee <pooka%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue Dec 14 2010 at 13:44:35 -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
> 
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Antti Kantee wrote:
> 
> > On Tue Dec 14 2010 at 13:25:25 -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
> >>> Do you have an objection (apart from the one in the beginning of the
> >>> mail where you indicated you don't like the new outlook of the code)?
> >>> If not, consider it a fun experiment where you gain a ton of features
> >>> for the cost of a bucket of paint.
> >> 
> >> We have now changes from having POSIX compliant sources to something
> >> that isn't.  In your example it's a high VOC paint that causes cancer
> >> in long term exposure.
> > 
> > Can you point out a specific case of where POSIX compliance has been
> > lost due to my work?
> 
> if you require host_XXX instead of XXX, that's enough.  I should not
> have to include something that translate host_XXX to XXX

Lucky for you I don't.  Maybe look at the code first?

Unless you are claiming e.g. route(8) is broken because it needs to
include something to translate show() to POSIX calls, but you surely
can't be talking about the *internal* implementation of a utility and
POSIX compliance in the same sentence.

-- 
älä karot toivorikkauttas, kyl rätei ja lumpui piisaa