Not because I admit they are technically wrong and not because of bug
reports (I receive nothing). But because I surprisingly meets so
strong opposition and resistance so lost any desire to continue that.
Anyone who interested in POSIX can dig out what changes and how
through cvs diffs.
(also IEEE Std 1003.1-2001)
The specs explicitly says that altering passed string
should change the environment, i.e. putenv() directly puts its arg
into environment (unlike setenv() which just copies it there).
It means that putenv() can't be implemented via setenv()
(like we have before) at all. Putenv() value lives (allows modifying)
up to the next putenv() or setenv() call.
Issue 6 (also IEEE Std 1003.1-2001) in following areas:
args, return, errors.
Putenv still needs rewriting because specs explicitly says that
altering passed string later should change the environment (currently we
copy the string so can't provide that).
