Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:20:37 -0700 (MST) From: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@plutotech.com> To: billf@jade.chc-chimes.com (Bill Fumerola) Cc: committers@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: getopt Message-ID: <199903071820.LAA73812@panzer.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990307115252.14279A-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com> from Bill Fumerola at "Mar 7, 1999 11:57:37 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Fumerola wrote... > > We have a problem. > > 'getopt' is not included in the base tree (it's a GNU thing) and many > ports depend on it. There have been proposed solutions to fix this > (ports/8838), but none of them feel right to me. getopt(3) is included in the base tree. It's in libc. It isn't GNU getopt, though. > Would the best solution be rolling a getopt library and then making it a > port? Should I proceed with this? I think that any port that just assumes that the system getopt is GNU getopt is making a bad assumption. I suppose the ports in question are probably Linux-based, 'eh? > NOTE: I am not talking about /usr/src/usr.bin/getopt, I am talking about: > bash-2.01$ pwd ; ls getopt* > /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/diff > getopt.c getopt.h getopt1.c > > Comments? I'd hate to do this the wrong way. Well, I suppose that making it a port is probably the most acceptable solution. Don't just go on my opinion, though...see what other folks have to say. Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@plutotech.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903071820.LAA73812>