3 ms·

The current one is a derivative of NetBSD's implementation (where it shells out to use a sh builtin)

• dxq 12y ago
  Judging by both the source code and its placement in the repository (gen/FreeBSD/wordexp.c), I'm thinking it's a derivative of the FreeBSD implementation (which may itself be a derivative of the NetBSD implementation, or perhaps the other way around).
  • JoachimS 12y ago
    Yes, the OSX code seems to come from FreeBSD. Here is the FreeBSD version of the source: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/lib/libc/gen/wordexp.c https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/lib/libc/gen/... It looks very similar to the current OSX file posted in an earlier comment. Calls /bin/sh too.
• lloeki 12y ago
  License-wise: - this piece of code is 2BSD-licensed - it calls out to /bin/sh - on OS X, /bin/sh is hardlinked to /bin/bash - OS X's bash is GPLv2 Forking to shell is the only way to reuse bash's code. More often than not I really wish sh were not bash.
  • _ZeD_ 12y ago
    "Forking to shell is the only way to reuse bash's code." well, the other obvius way is to license this piece of code as GPLv2.
    • yetihehe 12y ago
      AFAIK this is THE reason for GPL. So that you either release your code and contribute to open source or suffer from slower access methods.
      • feld 12y ago
        The BSDs doesn't ship with bash and their wordexp shelling out to /bin/sh doesn't suffer, so I don't see how this is a reason for the GPL.
        • yetihehe 12y ago
          Probably I've written it not clearly enough: "Reason for GPL not allowing you to use code in your own programs, but allowing use through exec: you either release your code and contribute to open source or suffer from slower access methods."
          • feld 12y ago
            ahh, ok; that's clearer
    • tedunangst 12y ago
      Which would require libc to be GPL, something not even glibc does.