>>> The problem is third-party software assumes epoll == Linux,
>> Software that makes stupid assumptions will never go away.
>> Is it better to work around it (not ship epoll.h), or to get it
>> fixed (report it upstream as the bug it is)? I could argue that
>> either way.
> I don't really see
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 07:39:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Jonathan Perkin writes:
>
> > * On 2023-08-13 at 18:10 BST, Tobias Nygren wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 19:21:06 -0400
> >>Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >>
> >>> I really want to understand what's going on here (why do we think that
Mouse writes:
>> The problem is third-party software assumes epoll == Linux,
>
> Software that makes stupid assumptions will never go away.
>
> Is it better to work around it (not ship epoll.h), or to get it fixed
> (report it upstream as the bug it is)? I could argue that either way.
I don't r
Jonathan Perkin writes:
> * On 2023-08-13 at 18:10 BST, Tobias Nygren wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 19:21:06 -0400
>>Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>
>>> I really want to understand what's going on here (why do we think that
>>> our epoll implementation is broken in a way that will affect applications
> The problem is third-party software assumes epoll == Linux,
Software that makes stupid assumptions will never go away.
Is it better to work around it (not ship epoll.h), or to get it fixed
(report it upstream as the bug it is)? I could argue that either way.
/~\ The ASCII
