Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2013
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>wrote: > To me it would seem that it is. Dealing with this limitation in Perl > code requires monkey code to be added to every user program, and for it > to get added requires toes getting stubbed on this bug first. Working > around it at the interpreter level would allow user code to pretend that > all is right in the world. > To quote POSIX: "When bits in *mode* other than the file permission bits are set, the meaning of these additional bits is implementation-defined." So the BSDs are entirely conformant even if they desire other (equally conformant) semantics. This is not really a bug. > At the perl level it can be fixed with an #ifdef protecting a chmod > guarded by a bit check. So the workaround is extremely cheap and even > then incurs a penalty only for those who need it; and it can easily be > dropped if and when FreeBSD is ever fixed, but at the same time breaks > nothing if it isn’t removed promptly – so maintenance burden is minimal. > > There seems to be essentially zero downside to adding the workaround. > > At the same time I can’t see any upside in not adding it and thereby > pushing the complexity out into Perl programs. Did I miss any benefit > here? Does what I missed outweigh the above benefits of doing it at the > interpreter level? > Sticky bits are uncommon enough that I think it's not worth the maintenence costs. LeonThread Previous | Thread Next