Thread: Another source of snprintf/vsnprintf code

Came across this offhand remark on another mailing list:

>  2. The code for substitute versions of snprintf() and vsnprintf(),
>     for systems without native versions has been replaced.  nmh
>     now uses the version of these routines taken from the Apache
>     web server code.

Hmm.  I don't know how bulletproof the snprintf/vsnprintf code we have
is, but it might be worth comparing what Apache is using to see if
theirs is better (and if they have a compatible copyright...).
        regards, tom lane

On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Hmm.  I don't know how bulletproof the snprintf/vsnprintf code we have
> is, but it might be worth comparing what Apache is using to see if
> theirs is better (and if they have a compatible copyright...).

I assume LGPL is license non grata?  glib has a good *printf*
implementation...

--
Todd Graham Lewis            32�49'N,83�36'W          (800) 719-4664, x2804
******Linux******         MindSpring Enterprises      tlewis@mindspring.net

"Those who write the code make the rules."                -- Jamie Zawinski

Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net> writes:
> I assume LGPL is license non grata?

Probably.  I'm not sure what Marc's position is, but I'd say we ought
to try to keep everything under a single set of license rules --- and
for better or worse, BSD license is what we have for the existing code.
If we distribute a system that has some BSD and some LGPL code, then
users have to follow *both* sets of rules if they want to live a clean
life, and that gets annoying.  (Also, LGPL is more restrictive about
what recipients can do with the code, which might mean some potential
Postgres users couldn't use it anymore.)

> glib has a good *printf* implementation...

Stephen Kogge <stevek@uimage.com> was looking at extracting printf
from glib (because his platform's printf didn't handle long long),
but I think he concluded that it wasn't practical to separate it
from the rest of glib --- seems everything's connected to everything
else...
        regards, tom lane

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net> writes:
> > I assume LGPL is license non grata?
> 
> Probably.  I'm not sure what Marc's position is, but I'd say we ought
> to try to keep everything under a single set of license rules --- and
> for better or worse, BSD license is what we have for the existing code.

Exactly...

If there are any problems with our current implementation, let us know so
that we can correct it...I haven't heard of any recently though (either
haven't heard, or its fallen on deaf ears?)

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org