On Apr 15 16:56, John Hardin wrote:
> All:
>
> Not being able to find any current signs of life for UUCP on Cygwin, I'm
> taking a shot at compiling 1.07.
>
> Taylor UUCP 1.07 apparently depends on the ftw libraries. Was the status
> of ftw() on Cygwin ever resolved?
All:
Not being able to find any current signs of life for UUCP on Cygwin, I'm
taking a shot at compiling 1.07.
Taylor UUCP 1.07 apparently depends on the ftw libraries. Was the status
of ftw() on Cygwin ever resolved? (ref the discussion of ftw and newlib
last August...)
Thanks!
--
John H
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:37:53PM -0400, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Le lun 04 ao? 2003 20:05:45 GMT, Nicholas Wourms a tapot? sur son clavier :
That being said, My suggestion to Samuel would be to investigate the
FreeBSD cvs repo to see if they have implimented ftw() in
Le lun 04 aoû 2003 20:05:45 GMT, Nicholas Wourms a tapoté sur son clavier :
> That being said, My suggestion to Samuel would be to investigate the
> FreeBSD cvs repo to see if they have implimented ftw() in their libc,
> since they have a more "free" license and aren't GP
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:37:53PM -0400, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>Le lun 04 ao? 2003 20:05:45 GMT, Nicholas Wourms a tapot? sur son clavier :
>>That being said, My suggestion to Samuel would be to investigate the
>>FreeBSD cvs repo to see if they have implimented ftw() in their lib
Hallo Christopher,
> Now, a day later, we find that Gerrit's email has again been ignored
> and the Wourms plan is unworkable.
> Odd.
I'll try again:
ftw/fts/nftw from openbsd (it is not in freebsd or netbsd):
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/include/ftw.h
http://
ttee) to grant a
license exception, since they're also @redhat.com people :-D. Between
the two of them, they must have written most of glibc's current code.
That being said, My suggestion to Samuel would be to investigate the
FreeBSD cvs repo to see if they have implimented ftw()
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 06:42:31PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>Am Montag, 4. August 2003 um 18:01 schriebst du:
>>Just to be clear: I'm not volunteering to do any work on this other
>>than offer opinions on whether the code is appropriate for inclusion
>>for cygwin.
>
>And, is this BSD version
Hallo Christopher,
Am Montag, 4. August 2003 um 18:01 schriebst du:
>>There is a ftw.c & ftw.h included in the wu-ftpd sources in the
>>support directory, BSD licensed:
>>
>> * Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California.
>> * All rights rese
reparation, but could this be included in cygwin's libc ?
>
>> As a matter of fact, no, it couldn't. Wrong license.
>
>There is a ftw.c & ftw.h included in the wu-ftpd sources in the
>support directory, BSD licensed:
>
> * Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the Uni
license.
There is a ftw.c & ftw.h included in the wu-ftpd sources in the
support directory, BSD licensed:
* Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
http://anfaenger.de/ftw/ftw.c
http://anfaenger.de/ftw/ftw.h
Theses two are from wu-ftpd-2.5.0
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 09:29:49PM -0400, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>At
>http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/cygwin/ftw.c
>http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/cygwin/ftw.h
>an almost unmodified version of newlib/libc/sys/linux/ftw.c can be found
>along its header.
>
>These come from the GNU libc, so should be
Hi,
At
http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/cygwin/ftw.c
http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/cygwin/ftw.h
an almost unmodified version of newlib/libc/sys/linux/ftw.c can be found
along its header.
These come from the GNU libc, so should be quite *right* :)
I don't have the tools nor the time to try to get
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to compile a old program (1995 I'd say), and it uses ftw(),
> which is fine with linux, but cygwin still hasn't the equivalent.
>
> I could find some post from 1998 telling
> "I understand t
Hi,
I'm trying to compile a old program (1995 I'd say), and it uses ftw(),
which is fine with linux, but cygwin still hasn't the equivalent.
I could find some post from 1998 telling
"I understand that Unix95 spec does have some variant of ftw (nftw?),
and if that's the
15 matches
Mail list logo