[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: Autoconf and differences between GNU getopt and
Derek Robert Price
Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: Autoconf and differences between GNU getopt and OpenBSD getopt
Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:19:08 -0400
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Derek Robert Price <address@hidden> writes:
>>>Do BSD really have getopt_long_only? If so, then the getopt.m4 need
>>>to be improved...
>>According to Alex, yes, it does.
>Ok, then getopt need to be fixed.
>But it seems bad style to replace a system getopt unless there is
>something wrong with it? In the POSIX sense, I mean.
>(Below I'm assuming the code Alex posted only exploited GNU specific
>features. If the code only relied on POSIX semantics, it seems that a
>smaller fix to getopt.m4 is sufficient.)
>Perhaps we can create two modules: getopt and getopt-gnu. This is
>similar to getpass and getpass-gnu. The getopt module would only be
>enabled if POSIX compliant getopt and getopt_long_only are missing.
>The getopt-gnu would be enabled when the system provided functions
>don't implement the GNU interface of getopt*.
Just thought I would point out that the current getopt module was
attempting to be the "new" getopt-gnu you describe since prior to the
BSD change, getopt_long_only meant a GNU implementation of getopt, in
case anyone had missed it.
Regardless, I wouldn't object to two modules, as long as one will
provide a GNU-style getopt on recent Open & Free BSDs.
Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----