* setgroups
@ 2003-04-17 20:07 Paul Jarc
2003-04-17 22:24 ` setgroups Marius Vollmer
2003-04-17 22:29 ` setgroups Rob Browning
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jarc @ 2003-04-17 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
Not a bug, really, but a significant (to me, anyway :) ) missing
feature. Can we have setgroups?
paul
_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: setgroups
2003-04-17 20:07 setgroups Paul Jarc
@ 2003-04-17 22:24 ` Marius Vollmer
2003-04-17 22:29 ` setgroups Rob Browning
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Marius Vollmer @ 2003-04-17 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
> Not a bug, really, but a significant (to me, anyway :) ) missing
> feature. Can we have setgroups?
Sure. Do you have a patch? ;-)
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: setgroups
2003-04-17 20:07 setgroups Paul Jarc
2003-04-17 22:24 ` setgroups Marius Vollmer
@ 2003-04-17 22:29 ` Rob Browning
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rob Browning @ 2003-04-17 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: guile-devel
(Followups set to guile-devel -- I think...)
prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
> Not a bug, really, but a significant (to me, anyway :) ) missing
> feature. Can we have setgroups?
I saw this and was about to just add it, but then realized I didn't
know what our policies were wrt to functions that might or might not
exist at runtime...
If I'm not mistaken, setgroups might or might not be available on a
given system. We can test for it in configure and optionally define
it in posix.c (or maybe elsewhere since it's not posix...), but then
what?
Given our current uncertainty about compilation, it seems like
(if (defined? 'setgroups) ...)
might be a bad idea for the long term, so how would we want to handle
this, via (provided? 'setgroups)? i.e. is provided? supposed to be
used for things at that fine a granularity? Also, it'd be nice if we
could use something that could in theory be optimized away like this
(though we probably wouldn't want this exactly...):
(define-constant *have-setgroups?* ...)
...
(if *have-setgroups?* ...)
etc.
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-04-17 22:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-04-17 20:07 setgroups Paul Jarc
2003-04-17 22:24 ` setgroups Marius Vollmer
2003-04-17 22:29 ` setgroups Rob Browning
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).