[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: two semantics of fclose()

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: two semantics of fclose()
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 00:44:14 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9

Hi Eric,

> > What is the semantic of fclose() that you want to test?
> > Basically, you have two possible behaviours of fclose(), one is probably
> > stricter POSIX compliant than the other.
> 1. fclose alone - guarantee that fdopen(sockfd) can be fclose'd
> 2. fclose + fflush - guarantee that fclose(stdin) properly positions the
> file on seekable input

OK, that's how it's documented now, now that the dependency from fflush to
fclose is dropped.

> if we just relicense fflush to be LGPLv2+, then
> fclose can depend on fflush to begin with, and always solve both
> problems at once, at which point I don't see the need for an fflush-strict.

Yes, this would be very reasonable. Few users would want only the
halfway fixed fclose().

Can we relax the license of 'fflush' and its dependency 'fpurge' from LGPLv3+
to LGPLv2+?

  lib/fflush.c - needs the permission of you, me, and Jim.
  lib/fpurge.c - needs the permission of you and me.

I agree to relax these two modules to LGPLv2+.

In memoriam Peter van Pels <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Pels>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]