From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos O'Donell Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library? Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:15:39 -0500 Message-ID: <85ce01c3-0704-b915-e591-437a051d371c@redhat.com> References: <20181111081725.GA30248@1wt.eu> <3664a508-ca74-4ff0-39a6-34543194a24e@gmail.com> <878t1zx4gj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Joseph Myers , Florian Weimer Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Willy Tarreau , Daniel Colascione , linux-kernel , Joel Fernandes , Linux API , Vlastimil Babka , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 11/12/18 11:43 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> People may have disappeared from glibc development who have objected to >> gettid. I thought this was the case with strlcpy/strlcat, but it was >> not. > > Well, I know of two main people who were objecting to the notion of adding > bindings for all non-obsolescent syscalls, Linux-specific if not suitable > for adding to the OS-independent GNU API, and neither seems to have posted > in the past year. > >> At present, it takes one semi-active glibc contributor to block addition >> of a system call. The process to override a sustained objection has >> never been used successfully, and it is a lot of work to get it even >> started. > > We don't have such a process. (I've suggested, e.g. in conversation with > Carlos at the Cauldron, that we should have something involving a > supermajority vote of the GNU maintainers for glibc in cases where we're > unable to reach a consensus in the community as a whole.) ... and I need a good excuse to propose such a process :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.