[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2023 09:24:23 +0100
From: Alastair Houghton <ahoughton@...le.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: __MUSL__ macro
On 7 Jul 2023, at 08:30, A. Wilcox <AWilcox@...cox-Tech.com> wrote:
>
> My proposal obviates the need for a PREREQ-style macro because user-facing behavioural differences would be tracked by the monotonically increasing number. I suppose the next bikeshed would be determining when to increase and when not to, but I don’t think we should open that up here.
A single monotonically increasing number might be OK, though it does mean that there’s no way to signal a significant incompatibility by bumping the major number, depending on how the project chooses to manage versioning. (Basically, your monotonically increasing number is my minor version number here :-))
I also don’t understand why people doing stuff like this
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58177815/how-to-actually-detect-musl-libc
is not seen as a problem. To my mind, it's *far* worse than having musl’s maintainers in charge of a macro definition (perhaps alongside documentation for it that explains that you usually shouldn’t use it, which could come with copious examples of how to avoid doing the wrong thing... I didn’t provide that in my patch, but if writing that is what it takes to get it accepted, I’m game).
Kind regards,
Alastair.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
