From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Mar 15 00:37:06 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA11335
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 00:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA11330
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 00:37:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id TAA29813; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 19:31:30 +1100
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 19:31:30 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199703150831.TAA29813@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: hackers@FreeBSD.org, imp@village.org
Subject: Re: getopt and EOF vs -1
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>A long time ago, I filed a bug saying that getopt returns -1 rather
>than EOF.  The general concensus at the time was approximately "Wait
>for lite-2, and then fix it."  Lite-2 documents getopt this way now,
>so I'm in the process of fixing it in our source base when I want
>something to do that doesn't require much thought or skill.  I've just
>finished usr.sbin and will be moving on to the rest of the tree.  I
>plan on making sure that these things survive a make world and that
>the system survies after that make world.  This will likely take about
>week or two to accomplish.  This places the bulk checkin safely after
>2.2R goes out.

There are about 331 possibilities.  Do you really wish to fix them all?
(y or n) :-)

I don't think the ones in code with an active vendor (other than us)
should be changed, but there isn't much point in changing our code until
others catch up.

Bruce