Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:56:23 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils Makefile.inc0 Message-ID: <20040315065623.GA43263@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040315001619.GA1586@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200403050147.i251l39I006593@repoman.freebsd.org> <200403042036.i24KaIeq025097@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040305141012.GA10639@ip.net.ua> <20040305143708.GA70192@nagual.pp.ru> <20040305152247.GB11063@ip.net.ua> <20040315001023.GP63585@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040315001619.GA1586@dragon.nuxi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 04:16:19PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 04:10:23PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:22:47PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > OK, I see. Removing the contrib/bintuils/include/getopt.h is the > > > only real solution -- I've removed it locally and reverted these > > > revisions, and it's now past that point. > > > > > > David, remove the damn header please. > > BTW, ask maintainer I do still have the option of NOT using the > getopt_long from libc and just sticking with the GNU supplied one. > Sure, but I think we should stick with what GNU configure would pick if it was run with getopt_long() in libc, either FSF or our libc version. > What is the justfication for using the libc getopt_long other than it is > there? > The above applies. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov FreeBSD committer ru@FreeBSD.org [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAVVOXUkv4P6juNwoRApNrAJsFKAsMtu+xQqja+61OA1O6QGrupwCdFGaf GOdQhcBCgk/0MqurqWkFiqU= =E9+9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040315065623.GA43263>