>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 9:59 PM >> From: "Theo de Raadt" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected], [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: mg(1) compatibility patches >> >> >> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM >> >> From: "Ted Unangst" <[email protected]> >> >> To: "Kamil Rytarowski" <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: mg(1) comaptibility patches >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 20:29, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> >> > 0001-Define-strtonum-3-for-the-NetBSD-target.patch >> >> >> >> I don't like this at all. The reason we put strtonum in libc is >> >> precisely not to have multiple copies of it floating around the tree. >> >> Uncompiled copies are still clutter. >> >> >> >> This may be odd for a BSD system, but perhaps the pkgsrc version could >> >> link against libbsd? >> >> >> > >> >Actually not as libbsd is in reality GNU/Linux-oriented. >> > >> >Other solution is to go backward for strtol(3)-like functions, >> >what do you think? >> >> >> Solution to what problem? >> >> > >Hello Theo, > >mg(1) is maintained in OpenBSD's CVS tree, therefore OpenBSD is upstream. > >In downstream (except FreeBSD and libbsd consumers) there is missing >strtonum(3). To enhance mg(1) and catch its bugs in general I need to >start with improvement of its portability to other unsupported systems >(as I'm a consumer of few pkgsrc platforms). > >Please point appropriate way to do it, preferably without floating >patches around.
The problem you are trying to define is that we (OpenBSD) are supposed to have a sense of responsibility to make a portable version of mg. Sorry, but I cannot find any file or email where that intent was declared in the past. I think you are on your own.
