Roderick <hru...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> OpenBSD is developed as a whole; kernel, system source, ports. Changes made >> in one place often require changes to the other parts; if you're not tracking >> development that is a whole lot of work you're going to need to replicate. > > But the question about standards is not answered. > > With standards the age of the system does not play much a role. One > easily can compile programs that are not in ports. > > BSD is one of the oldest OS with IP support, and still now / few years > ago was not clear from where to take MAXHOSTNAMELEN? > > OK, sysconf(_SC_HOST_NAME_MAX) may have a theoretical advantage > when compiling one program for different systems. Is it a standard?
Why do you ask? I'm sure you can use a search engine. > Why was it not before in OpenBSD? I'm not sure that your claim is correct, but the way your question is worded leads to an easy answer: because the OpenBSD developers are slackers that didn't give you what you needed in time. I hope you can see what is wrong with that attitude. > And I like new programs that compile in old systems without problems. > For me, this is quality. Your understanding of "quality" may be a bit twisted. > A program that compiles with make is better > than one that compiles only with gmake or need many dependencies > for trivial things (like generating man pages). I know a bunch of folks that deal with the ports tree on a daily basis; the portability problems they tackle are way less trivial than gmake and manpage generators. Reading you whine about _SC_HOST_NAME_MAX makes me smile. > Rodrigo. > -- jca | PGP: 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
