On Friday 26 January 2007 17:03, Marco Gerards wrote: > Lubomir Kundrak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I preferred that libargp would be included in our source tree so that it > >> would be used when argp is not found in a system, but I guess Marco > >> hasn't done it yet. This depends on which is more convenient for users, > >> using an external shared library, or using our own. In GRUB Legacy, I > >> included getopt for *BSD, and I got positive answers. So I feel that it > >> would be better to include. > > > > Sound reasonable. Would it be of any use if I converted other utils to > > make use of argp in my spare time? > > It seems either that Okuji doesn't care or doesn't know yet. I > personally prefer argp because it is easy to use, flexible and less > work to maintain. And like you said, less code... less code normally > means less bugs. > > So it depends on Okuji what to do. If he doesn't care I would be > happy with such a patch.
I don't know. I agree that using a single library for the same goal is more consistent. However, I am so used to getopt, and I have no problem with it. Thus I am not eager to migrate to argp in particular, although I do not object to using argp. (In my whole life, I have used argp only once for Hurd.) Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
