[Bug libc/17662] New: please implement binding for the new renameat2 syscall

[Bug libc/17662] New: please implement binding for the new renameat2 syscall

[miklos at szeredi dot hu]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17662

            Bug ID: 17662
           Summary: please implement binding for the new renameat2 syscall
           Product: glibc
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: libc
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: miklos at szeredi dot hu
                CC: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/17662] please implement binding for the new renameat2 syscall

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17662

--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
Please use libc-alpha, not Bugzilla, to propose new APIs; Bugzilla is for 
objective bugs, not subjective questions about the desirability of 
features.  There is no consensus on when Linux-specific interfaces should 
have bindings in glibc; you need to join the thread starting at 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00541.html> and help the 
community reach a consensus (and then maybe help with the analysis to 
determine what syscalls merit bindings according to that consensus, and 
with the implementation of those bindings).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/17662] please implement binding for the new renameat2 syscall

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17662

--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
And see <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00591.html> 
specifically for disagreement with adding Linux-specific interfaces (as 
opposed to deciding an interface is generally meaningful for any OS 
supported by glibc and should be part of the generic API from glibc, with 
ENOSYS stubs for platforms where it's not implemented).  That viewpoint is 
what you need to engage with, on libc-alpha, if you wish to reach 
consensus on adding new syscall bindings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.