[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Support open-process and friends on MS-Windows
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Support open-process and friends on MS-Windows |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Jul 2016 17:49:15 +0300 |
> From: address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès)
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:09:47 +0200
>
> >> >>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >> >>> > +# define getuid() (500) /* Local Administrator */
> >> >>> > +# define getgid() (513) /* None */
> >> >>> > +# define setuid(u) (0)
> >> >>> > +# define setgid(g) (0)
> >>
> >> What about leaving ‘setuid’ and ‘setgid’ undefined, as was the case
> >> until now?
> >
> > I fail to see how this would be better. It would mean any program
> > that calls these will not work on MS-Windows. Why should we expect
> > developers of those Guile programs to be aware of the issue and solve
> > it on the Guile Scheme level? And what solution will they possibly be
> > able to come up with, except not to call these APIs on Windows?
>
> Our strategy so far has been to (1) either solve the portability issue
> via Gnulib, or (2) do not provide the feature that is unavailable (the
> #ifdef HAVE_ in posix.c et al.)
>
> It means that application writers have to be aware of the portability
> problems, even if it’s all Scheme. That sounds reasonable to me.
>
> WDYT?
I don't think it's wise, and I explained why. Gnulib in this case is
unlikely to provide any implementation, except one that always fails,
because these operations have no equivalent on MS-Windows.
But if agreeing to remove these two lines will cause the rest of the
patch to be finally admitted, I'm fine with that compromise.
TIA