Message333629
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
gregory.p.smith, izbyshev, koobs, nanjekyejoannah, pablogsal, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2019年01月14日.16:50:54 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1547484654.09.0.0805034441558.issue35537@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> 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. |
|