Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Thanks for saying everything I wanted to say ;-) > > Isn't strlcpy() an OpenBSD-initiated effort? So if we're going to update Yes. > this at all shouldn't be be aiming for picking an "upstream" here? > E.g. [1]? If this were an improvement, yes. But if I am reading the patch correctly, it changes what the value returned from the function means. I do not think that would fly even in the upstream, without a very good justification. Adding a new function that has semantics different from strlcpy() might be a possibility at upstream, but as far as this project is concerned, if we were to change the use of strlcpy() in the codebase, we often have tools that are much better suited in our arsenal, as Peff already mentioned, so...
