STINNER Victor <vstin...@redhat.com> added the comment: > https://wiki.musl-libc.org/faq.html
""" Q: Why is there no __MUSL__ macro? It’s a bug to assume a certain implementation has particular properties rather than testing. So far, every time somebody’s asked for this with a particular usage case in mind, the usage case was badly wrong, and would have broken support for the next release of musl. The official explanation: http://openwall.com/lists/musl/2013/03/29/13 """ IMHO that's wrong. A software like Python heavily rely on the *exact* implementation of a libc. https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/9224/files looks like a coarse heuristic to detect musl for example. Until muscl decides to provide an "#ifdef __MUSL__"-like or any way that it's musl, I propose to not support musl: don't use os.posix_spawn() but _posixsubprocess. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35537> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
