Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/13/2010 10:04 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> Yes, this point has been raised in the past. I certainly agree that a >> process with no children doesn't need the overhead of guaranteeing an >> open() wrapper that supports O_CLOEXEC, so definitely splitting things >> into two modules is worthwhile. In fact, I'm wondring if the best >> approach might even be to just have the existing cloexec module be the >> key for whether O_CLOEXEC is guaranteed to be supported in open. >> >> At any rate, all contributors have replied, so I'm pushing this: > > Also worth converting from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2+: > > dup3 > pipe2 > accept4 > > I'm guessing they were created LGPL at the time because fcntl() and > cloexec modules were not at v2+. Any objections to relaxing those three > modules?
Fine by me.
