On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Paolo Bonzini<bonz...@gnu.org> wrote: > On 08/10/2009 09:02 PM, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >> What does this mean? >> I did not request the close module, and it is not clear why I should. >> >> (in fact, I don't see why pulling uname should change the semantics of >> close. >> yes, uname requires gethostname, which requires sockets &c, so I see the >> dependency chain, but I think what I see is a dependency *creep*, which >> I have been complaining about ever since I started using gnulib). > > No, gethostname does not require sockets &c, it just requires sys/socket.h.
then I do not see why close has to be redefined. > IIRC, something like this: > > diff --git a/lib/unistd.in.h b/lib/unistd.in.h > index 93edb48..733c8b6 100644 > --- a/lib/unistd.in.h > +++ b/lib/unistd.in.h > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ > # define close rpl_close > extern int close (int); > # endif > -#elif @UNISTD_H_HAVE_WINSOCK2_H@ > +#elif @UNISTD_H_HAVE_WINSOCK2_H@ &&(@GNULIB_SOCKET@ || @GNULIB_ACCEPT@) > # undef close > # define close close_used_without_requesting_gnulib_module_close > #elif defined GNULIB_POSIXCHECK > > was not considered safe (?), but I would like to have something like this > indeed. well, maybe it is time to apply your patch... -- Sam Steingold <http://sds.podval.org>
