From owner-cvs-ports  Mon Feb 17 11:33:48 1997
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA08943
          for cvs-ports-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:33:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (ppp-206-170-5-164.rdcy01.pacbell.net [206.170.5.164])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08938;
          Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shockwave.com (localhost.shockwave.com [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA26323; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199702171932.LAA26323@precipice.shockwave.com>
To: obrien@NUXI.com (David O'Brien)
cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org,
        cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/gcc/config/i386 freebsd-elf.h freebsd.h 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:29:03 PST."
             <19970216232903.WR49823@dragon.nuxi.com> 
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:32:16 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I don't have something to take to the table.  However, I do have a list of
suggestions:
	(a) this is OS, not compiler dependant
		(that means it has to fit in the specfile at a minimum)
	(b) runtime is better than compile time for many things, however
		runtime is not a do-all win
	(c) capability bits are far better than datecodes
	(d) it has to let one or more of the other guys get out of sync

That's why I think autoconf is the way to go, instead of having one or
two symbols.  I'd much rather know that I have the poll() system call than
that I'm running FreeBSD > 19970220.

Paul

  From: obrien@NUXI.com (David O'Brien)
  Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/gcc/config/i386 freebsd-elf.h freebsd.h
  Paul Traina writes:
  >   We can be high and mightly and tell people they *will* use the BSD macro
  >   in <sys/param.h>, but it simply doesn't happen.  The masses use
  >   __FreeBSD__ whether we like it or not.  I want something that covers
  >   FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDI.  "#if defined(__FreeBSD__) ||
  >   defined(__OpenBSD__) ... " is simply ludicrist.
  > 
  > Yes, I agree with you there.  I've wanted this fixed for ages.
  > 
  > Get Free, Open, Net, and BSDI to agree on something COMMON and we can
  > take it from there.  If you do something unilaterally, you just add more
  > confusion.
  
  Give me something to take to the table and I will push hard for it to
  happen.  My position is, adding another preprocessor directive is simply
  the cost of being able to use the FreeBSD ports collection.
  
  -- 
  -- David	(obrien@NUXI.com  -or-  obrien@FreeBSD.org)