On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 11:07:41AM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 06:47:45PM +0000, Crystal Kolipe wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 10:21:58AM +0100, tetrosalame wrote: > > > BTW, i failed to find an in-tree .c file where execpromises weren't > > > set to NULL: is that idiom somehow discouraged? > > As I recall, when I wrote the module the second argument was still very > experimental (I think it was pledgepaths maybe) and after it had settled > to execpromises but before I had time, this message was posted. > > > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=158378079011968 > > I then lost interest.
Does the fact that ldd is now using execpromises invalidate the previous advice not to use it? Or is this still undecided?
