Author vstinner
Recipients gregory.p.smith, izbyshev, koobs, nanjekyejoannah, pablogsal, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2019-01-14.16:50:54
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-01-14 16:50:56vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, koobs, izbyshev, pablogsal, nanjekyejoannah
2019-01-14 16:50:54vstinnersetmessageid: <1547484654.09.0.0805034441558.issue35537@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-01-14 16:50:54vstinnerlinkissue35537 messages
2019-01-14 16:50:54vstinnercreate