Luke, don't feel bad. Very little code that is "offered" gets taken by the OpenBSD project. OpenBSD really only takes when they see benefit for the project. An example for that is openssh. What you really want to do is focus on your own projects and make them available somewhere so that when OpenBSD gets wind of it they'll take it.
Cheers, -peter On 01/29/16 09:19, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > Firstly, I don't think we need this in base and I think there is little > to no chance of it being taken, even if the code is improved. > > Secondly: > > - The code is still miles off style(9) and isn't really a consistent > style within itself either. > > - Forking uname(1)? What? No offence, but that is hilarious :-). Why > fork uname(1) for uname(3) but not date(1) for gettimeofday(2)? > > - Why would you fork sed either? > > I think C is the wrong tool for this. Why not write a shell, perl, or > python script? > > Then if people start to use it you could make a port. > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:34:30AM -0600, Luke Small wrote: >> I think I fixed all your suggestions. I don't strictly adhere to kernel >> normal in the use of comments and I parse command-line arguments without >> using getopt(3), but the method is robust. >> >> -Luke >> >> <A few quick comments from glancing over this: >> >> o I definitely don't think camel case will be accepted >> >> o I'm pretty sure strtonum(3) is strongly preferred over strtod(3) et al. >>
