On 06 May 2015 13:37, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 07:22 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > > I would like to get rid of the portable branch. [...]  
> > 
> > What is the argument against getting rid of the portable branch by
> > merging it into master?
> 
> It contains hacks that we don't want to have on master because they
> either just conflict with current standards/implementations (like using
> %a in scanf instead of %m), inefficient (busy looping to detect process
> state changes, because of buggy kernels), have conditional code paths
> (which are a pain to maintain/keep working and obscure the code) or have
> workarounds that are subtly wrong (like in this case where switching
> back to path based file manipulation after already having opened and
> checked a file descriptor might open up possible security issues because
> of Time-of-check Time-of-use race conditions).
> 
> If there are specific hacks you would like to see brought over from the
> portable branch to master, please do propose and we can discuss them.
> But I really think none of them are needed or should be used these days.

there's still the issue of --disable-werror
-mike