On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 05:29:27PM +0100, David Gaarenstroom wrote: > > Combined with the fact that, as mentioned, errno numeric values are not > > portable across architectures, I think it's better to just prohibit them > > outright rather than allow users to write jobs that will behave in > > unexpected manners.
> I wouldn't advice using numeric values either, I'd only allow them as > fall-back. James' concern seems to be that syscall numbers might be > missing, and that might be just as much the case for errno numbers... > If someone likes to use a numeric value he *must* have a very good > reason for doing so and he should realize that that's > risky/non-portable/hackish. This simply is not as enforceable requirement. If you make the facility available, someone *will* use it for the wrong reasons, and create gratuitously unportable jobs (which *misbehave* rather than fail when copied between systems). The way to make sure that people aren't using numeric errno or syscall values without a good reason is to disallow it entirely in the first implementation, and wait for someone to come to us with their problems. Then when we have *real* use cases rather than just theoretical ones, we can try to solve them in a way that minimizes the risk of foot-shooting. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
