From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Support open-process and friends on MS-Windows Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 17:49:15 +0300 Message-ID: <83r3b0cjro.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834m8i3off.fsf@gnu.org> <877fde958i.fsf@gnu.org> <83wple1zym.fsf@gnu.org> <83ziq9zl8l.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg7lbnpi.fsf@pobox.com> <83y45tzhyn.fsf@gnu.org> <87twghs9ot.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3blz96w.fsf@gnu.org> <87inwn3aq7.fsf@netris.org> <83y45jqt5y.fsf@gnu.org> <8760sk34xc.fsf@netris.org> <87inwk33zs.fsf@gnu.org> <83poqsnkod.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpksoat0.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1468248682 8923 80.91.229.3 (11 Jul 2016 14:51:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: wingo@pobox.com, mhw@netris.org, guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 11 16:51:14 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bMcYE-0002aL-9o for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:51:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34124 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bMcYD-0003IJ-Hq for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:51:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38707) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bMcWp-0002fI-F6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:49:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bMcWn-0001rg-G9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:49:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:48539) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bMcWi-0001qX-Qc; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:49:40 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3821 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bMcWg-0006dj-3K; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:49:39 -0400 In-reply-to: <87wpksoat0.fsf@gnu.org> (ludo@gnu.org) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18478 Archived-At: > From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: mhw@netris.org, wingo@pobox.com, guile-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:09:47 +0200 > > >> >>> Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> >>> > +# define getuid() (500) /* Local Administrator */ > >> >>> > +# define getgid() (513) /* None */ > >> >>> > +# define setuid(u) (0) > >> >>> > +# define setgid(g) (0) > >> > >> What about leaving ‘setuid’ and ‘setgid’ undefined, as was the case > >> until now? > > > > I fail to see how this would be better. It would mean any program > > that calls these will not work on MS-Windows. Why should we expect > > developers of those Guile programs to be aware of the issue and solve > > it on the Guile Scheme level? And what solution will they possibly be > > able to come up with, except not to call these APIs on Windows? > > Our strategy so far has been to (1) either solve the portability issue > via Gnulib, or (2) do not provide the feature that is unavailable (the > #ifdef HAVE_ in posix.c et al.) > > It means that application writers have to be aware of the portability > problems, even if it’s all Scheme. That sounds reasonable to me. > > WDYT? I don't think it's wise, and I explained why. Gnulib in this case is unlikely to provide any implementation, except one that always fails, because these operations have no equivalent on MS-Windows. But if agreeing to remove these two lines will cause the rest of the patch to be finally admitted, I'm fine with that compromise. TIA