On 04/28/2014 03:49 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > 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. Indeed. setjmp has its uses; they're not very common, but it's not unreasonable for an upstream programmer to use setjmp. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
