Re: two semantics of fclose()

[Eric Blake]

On 05/05/2011 04:44 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
>>> What is the semantic of fclose() that you want to test?
>>> Basically, you have two possible behaviours of fclose(), one is probably
>>> stricter POSIX compliant than the other.
>>
>> 1. fclose alone - guarantee that fdopen(sockfd) can be fclose'd
>> 2. fclose + fflush - guarantee that fclose(stdin) properly positions the
>> file on seekable input
> 
> OK, that's how it's documented now, now that the dependency from fflush to
> fclose is dropped.
> 
>> if we just relicense fflush to be LGPLv2+, then
>> fclose can depend on fflush to begin with, and always solve both
>> problems at once, at which point I don't see the need for an fflush-strict.
> 
> Yes, this would be very reasonable. Few users would want only the
> halfway fixed fclose().
> 
> Can we relax the license of 'fflush' and its dependency 'fpurge' from LGPLv3+
> to LGPLv2+?
> 
>   lib/fflush.c - needs the permission of you, me, and Jim.
>   lib/fpurge.c - needs the permission of you and me.
> 
> I agree to relax these two modules to LGPLv2+.

As do I.  In fact, given the earlier question about libposix (should it
be LGPLv2+ or LGPLv3+), we may be repeating our line of questioning.

-- 
Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature