From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Jan 9 08:57:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA09649 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:57:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id IAA09644 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:57:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 0.56 #1) id E0viNnJ-0005A8-00; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:57:33 -0700 To: Chuck Robey Subject: Re: Niklas Hallqvist: archivers/hpack.non-usa.only Cc: ports@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:34:52 EST." References: Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 09:57:33 -0700 From: Warner Losh Message-Id: Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message Chuck Robey writes: : David .... can't we just have an if exists to detect sys/param.h, then : something like this in the makefile : .if exists /usr/include/sys/param.h : CFLAGS+=-DHAVE_PARAM_H : .endif : and in the source file : #ifdef HAVE_PARAM_H : #include : #endif : and then below do the #ifdefs based on BSD4_4 That's a good idea, but it isn't portible to all systems. Most of them don't have the concept of .if exists, or use a different syntax for it. I doubt that most software authors would find it acceptible, so the reintegration of our patches into their source bases would likely not happen in this case. However, you could say #ifdef unix rather than #ifdef HAVE_PARAM_H and be right enough of the time to convince authors of software packages that they should do this. BTW, is sys/param.h posix or not? I don't see it in my book on posix 1990 (which likely explains why NT doesn't have one). Deos anybody know of a system that defines "unix" or "__unix__" yet doesn't have a sys/param.h? Warner