Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...except that a declaration for fchdir() is already provided (hmm,
> sorry, should have mentioned it is the link that dies, not the compile).
> So why would an fchdir.h be needed?
If your system really does have an fchdir declaration (in unistd.h?),
th
Eric Blake wrote:
> Also, GNU coding
> standards recommend using just 'name', rather than 'filename' or even 'file'.
Huh? I think there is a misunderstanding. The GNU standards don't want
'pathname' to occur in the documentation in the sense as POSIX uses it,
because of the PATH variable and the
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Huh? I think there is a misunderstanding. The GNU standards don't want
> 'pathname' to occur in the documentation in the sense as POSIX uses it,
> because of the PATH variable and the concept of search paths. Paul then
> doesn't want to use 'pathname' in
I noticed that three .m4 files have LGPL copyright notices,
rather than the standard, more-permissive one.
This change corrects what I think must have been an oversight.
Paul, the latter two are yours. Any objection?
* m4/warning.m4: Use the all-permissive copyright notice
recomm
Jim Meyering wrote:
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...except that a declaration for fchdir() is already provided (hmm,
sorry, should have mentioned it is the link that dies, not the compile).
So why would an fchdir.h be needed?
If your system really does have an fchdir declaration
Eric Blake wrote:
According to Matthew Woehlke on 11/29/2006 4:48 PM:
The licensing issue is a more important question; do any of the fchdir
users need to stay LGPL?
fts-lgpl already has licensing issues that have been brought up this
month, so I don't think you would be making matters any wor
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
> Right.
> I did a survey, some time ago, of reasonable porting targets, and all
> had fchdir. Eventually I should remove the test for fchdir, too.
FYI, mingw is another relatively-active porting target that lacks fchdir, which
would benefit from a good fc
Matthew Woehlke users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> That sounds like a good idea, but... does that mean I have to *write* an
> entire unistd.h *and* make it work everywhere, or is there a way to
> 'drop in' one that pulls the system unistd.h, plus extras?
For an example of how to provide a replac
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul, the latter two are yours. Any objection?
Not at all, it was a pure oversight. I installed that patch.
Eric Blake wrote:
Matthew Woehlke writes:
That sounds like a good idea, but... does that mean I have to *write* an
entire unistd.h *and* make it work everywhere, or is there a way to
'drop in' one that pulls the system unistd.h, plus extras?
For an example of how to provide a replacement , se
10 matches
Mail list logo
