Deprecate setjmp/longjmp? [was Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?]
ajax at redhat.com
Mon Apr 28 14:49:12 UTC 2014
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 09:58 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:57:27AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 23:02 +0100, Andrew Price wrote:
> > > On 24/04/14 15:13, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > We probably should make setjmp()-freeness a requirement for
> > > > all code included in Fedora.
> > >
> > > Would it be worth the effort, and how feasible is it anyway?
> > I don't think it'd be worth the effort, and I think the burden of
> > computing feasibility should rest with those who think it _is_ worth the
> > effort.
> Well, we could consider banning it from new packages and just let attrition
> take care of the rest.
We could. I still wouldn't consider that a productive use of time.
It's a rare API that can't be misused, I'd much prefer if we approached
code quality by _actually reading the code_ rather than deciding with
grep what we will and won't accept.
I know that's a radical idea, that as packagers we ought actually to
know the language of the code being packaged, but I think it has merit.
More information about the devel