From owner-freebsd-ports Sun May 20 20:33:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from babylon.merseine.nu (c418236-a.clmba1.mo.home.com [24.12.203.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D98437B42C for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 20:33:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ishmael@home.com) Received: (from ishmael@localhost) by babylon.merseine.nu (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f4L3ZJn43024 for ports@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 20 May 2001 22:35:19 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ishmael) Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:35:19 -0500 From: Jeremy Norris To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Need ftw.h for a port + license questions Message-ID: <20010520223519.A43002@babylon.merseine.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org A port I maintain, graphics/gliv, started using functions from an ftw.h. This appears to be some sort of XPG/4 stuff, and it is in glibc. Searching around for awhile, I found that wu-ftpd implements an ftw.[ch] for platforms that lack it. Pulling that implementation and adding it to my updated gliv appears to make it function. Reading the source license for wu-ftpd, I believe it is ok for me to do this and add it the FreeBSD port (gliv is GPL'd); however, before submitting this, I wanted to ask for further opinions on the matter; am I correct believing this? and/or is there another ftw.h implementation out there? Jeremy To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message