From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: setgroups Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:29:25 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87brz4dagq.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1050618688 22425 80.91.224.249 (17 Apr 2003 22:31:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 18 00:31:25 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 196HtX-0005kZ-00 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:30:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 196HtA-0004Ft-07 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:29:52 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Hsp-00041d-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:29:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Hsm-0003tq-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:29:29 -0400 Original-Received: from dsl093-098-016.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.98.16] helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Hsj-0003oB-00; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:29:25 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9EE1421E; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:29:25 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 38A8921521B; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:29:25 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: bug-guile@gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: guile-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (prj@po.cwru.edu's message of "Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:07:03 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2177 gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:749 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:2177 (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