Re: setgroups

[Rob Browning]

(Followups set to guile-devel -- I think...)

address@hidden (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Not a bug, really, but a significant (to me, anyway :) ) missing
> feature.  Can we have setgroups?

I saw this and was about to just add it, but then realized I didn't
know what our policies were wrt to functions that might or might not
exist at runtime...

If I'm not mistaken, setgroups might or might not be available on a
given system.  We can test for it in configure and optionally define
it in posix.c (or maybe elsewhere since it's not posix...), but then
what?

Given our current uncertainty about compilation, it seems like

  (if (defined? 'setgroups) ...)

might be a bad idea for the long term, so how would we want to handle
this, via (provided? 'setgroups)?  i.e. is provided? supposed to be
used for things at that fine a granularity?  Also, it'd be nice if we
could use something that could in theory be optimized away like this
(though we probably wouldn't want this exactly...):

  (define-constant *have-setgroups?* ...)
  ...

  (if *have-setgroups?* ...)

etc.

Thanks

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4