On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 09:58 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:57:27AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 23:02 +0100, Andrew Price wrote: > > > On 24/04/14 15:13, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > We probably should make setjmp()-freeness a requirement for > > > > all code included in Fedora. > > > > > > Would it be worth the effort, and how feasible is it anyway? > > > > I don't think it'd be worth the effort, and I think the burden of > > computing feasibility should rest with those who think it _is_ worth the > > effort. > > Well, we could consider banning it from new packages and just let attrition > take care of the rest. We could. I still wouldn't consider that a productive use of time. It's a rare API that can't be misused, I'd much prefer if we approached code quality by _actually reading the code_ rather than deciding with grep what we will and won't accept. I know that's a radical idea, that as packagers we ought actually to know the language of the code being packaged, but I think it has merit. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
