Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:25:10 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: "Matthias Andree" <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: header file bug sys/types.h sys/file.h vs. _XOPEN_SOURCE standard Message-ID: <86skca6409.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <op.u3mxwfh21e62zd@balu.cs.uni-paderborn.de> (Matthias Andree's message of "Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:27:41 %2B0100") References: <op.u3mxwfh21e62zd@balu.cs.uni-paderborn.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Matthias Andree" <matthias.andree@gmx.de> writes: > I've talked to Theodore Y. Ts'o, who is the sysutils/e2fsprogs > upstream maintainer and proposed to remove the _XOPEN_SOURCE > definition (my idea was that the code shouldn't be claiming standards > compliance while it uses non-standard headers), but he refused that > (since it would break the e2fsprogs build on Solaris). He's right. You misunderstand _XOPEN_SOURCE; it does not mean "my program complies with X/Open blah", it means "my program requires the facilities provided by X/Open blah". The problem lies in FreeBSD's headers, which don't implement namespace separation correctly. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86skca6409.fsf>