| > don't know enough about vfork and fork to speak intelligently here,
| > but I seem to understand that using AC_REPLACE_FUNCS would be better
| > suited then, no? I mean, from the user point of view, not for the
| > tests themselves.
|
| What do you mean? If you don't have a fork(), you can't replace it.
| To have a fork() on AmigaOS you'd need to write a new OS.
I meant that, if I have understood correctly, your proposal is to
replace vfork with fork or conversely depending upon the broken one.
I don't like too much the silly #define fork vfork games, so I was
suggesting to provide functions instead.
| > Hm... Do we really want _two_ macros here?
|
| Actually, they're related anyway, so I put them into one macro,
| obsoleting AC_FUNC_VFORK.
:) Yes, that's what I meant. But you're too fast :) I was also
waiting for the comments from other maintainers. And I would have
handled the merge myself, I didn't mean to have you do it. In
particular, I was referring to presenting a single macro to the user,
but _not_ making a huge macro.
| Btw, why does AC_FUNC_FNMATCH define HAVE_FNMATCH instead of
| HAVE_WORKING_FNMATCH?
Because of (*£&$(*£R history, and backward compatibility. But you are
right, let's define the proper name too.
