From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Mar 7 10:21: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from panzer.plutotech.com (panzer.plutotech.com [206.168.67.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F8614D87; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 10:21:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ken@panzer.plutotech.com) Received: (from ken@localhost) by panzer.plutotech.com (8.9.2/8.8.5) id LAA73812; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:20:37 -0700 (MST) From: "Kenneth D. Merry" Message-Id: <199903071820.LAA73812@panzer.plutotech.com> Subject: Re: getopt In-Reply-To: from Bill Fumerola at "Mar 7, 1999 11:57:37 am" To: billf@jade.chc-chimes.com (Bill Fumerola) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:20:37 -0700 (MST) Cc: committers@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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