On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:23:49PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
+#ifdef _WIN32
The conditional for Woe32 platforms, excluding Cygwin (which has normal Unix
API),
is
#if (defined _WIN32 || defined __WIN32__) !defined __CYGWIN__
Sorry, I somehow missed your mail about Cygwin defining
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Wouldn't this be a good situation to have nanosleep depend on the
unistd module, and make the replacement unistd.h include winsock2.h on
mingw32 platforms? After all, nanosleep.c include unistd.h, and
unistd.h define select on some platforms.
Yes,
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Wouldn't this be a good situation to have nanosleep depend on the
unistd module, and make the replacement unistd.h include winsock2.h on
mingw32 platforms? After all, nanosleep.c include unistd.h, and
unistd.h define select on some platforms.
But unistd.h is not
This fixes an outdated comment in getugroups.c. getgrent et al. are part
of POSIX/XSI since the Base Specifications Version 5.
*** gnulib-20060430/lib/getugroups.c2005-09-23 06:15:13.0 +0200
--- gnulib-20060430-modified/lib/getugroups.c 2006-05-19 00:46:28.0
+0200
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This fixes an outdated comment in getugroups.c. getgrent et al. are part
of POSIX/XSI since the Base Specifications Version 5.
Applied. Thanks.
Paul Eggert wrote:
In other places I used to define WIN32 as an abbreviation of
defined _WIN32 || defined __WIN32__
Now I'm renaming that to WIN32_NATIVE.
Would WOE32_NATIVE be a better name?
I don't know. I use the term Woe32 when I talk about the platform which is
not a win. But in
* Bruno Haible wrote on Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:07:01PM CEST:
Paul Eggert wrote:
Would WOE32_NATIVE be a better name?
Many people believe code should be neutral.
FWIW, I agree. After all, POSIX_ME_HARDER was dropped, too.
I removed occurrences of M$VC and *BSD from the Libtool sources,
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul Eggert wrote:
In other places I used to define WIN32 as an abbreviation of
defined _WIN32 || defined __WIN32__
Now I'm renaming that to WIN32_NATIVE.
Would WOE32_NATIVE be a better name?
Many people believe code should be neutral.
How
Jim Meyering wrote:
That is because it's looking in the wrong place.
This patch fixes the immediate problem
Indeed, thanks. But the bug is really in the AC_FUNC_GETLOADAVG macro in
autoconf.
The macros
AC_FUNC_ERROR_AT_LINE, AC_FUNC_LSTAT_FOLLOWS_SLASHED_SYMLINK,
AC_FUNC_MALLOC,
Hi Ralf,
* doc/standards.texi (System Portability): Spell out `free BSD
variants', instead of using the term `*BSD'.
Before I bother rms with this, can you please explain to me the
objection to *BSD? I'd never heard that before. NetBSD and OpenBSD
don't like being
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since gnulib's policy is to let the programs write code in POSIX
syntax, I vote for a module that creates a sys/select.h file in
the build directory.
Yes, that would make sense, to properly declare 'select'. For
nanosleep I suppose we'd also need a
Hi Karl,
* Karl Berry wrote on Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:19:41PM CEST:
* doc/standards.texi (System Portability): Spell out `free BSD
variants', instead of using the term `*BSD'.
Before I bother rms with this, can you please explain to me the
objection to *BSD?
Would WOE32_NATIVE be a better name?
Many people believe code should be neutral.
OK, but WIN32_NATIVE isn't neutral either; it connotes win.
How about W32_NATIVE then? I believe that some other GNU code
uses w32 as a 32-bit Windows prefix.
That'd be OK.
gnulib is getting exposed to a larger audience:
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/12/16/2051201
Nicely written article, IMO.
Bruno
Karl Berry wrote:
* doc/standards.texi (System Portability): Spell out `free BSD
variants', instead of using the term `*BSD'.
Before I bother rms with this, can you please explain to me the
objection to *BSD? I'd never heard that before. NetBSD and OpenBSD
don't
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/12/16/2051201
Nicely written article, IMO.
Yes, it's unusual to have a reporter do that good a job.
I did have a beef with the conclusion you should not use it [gnulib]
in critical software. cp isn't critical?
I thought this was more commonly known
Not by me.
I'm unsure if it's worth bothering.
As always, I'd rather not occupy rms' time if we can avoid it.
In the absence of any clamor to make this tiny change in the GNU
standards.texi, I'd rather skip it.
Thanks,
karl
Hi Michael,
Thanks for writing.
This has the problem that not all languages treat singular and plural
the same way as English.
I see the problem, but what is the solution? Repeating every message
containing a number to have separate cases for so many integers seems
quite impractical.
Karl Berry wrote:
Another thing worth mentioning is that it is better to limit strings
to be translated to one number argument per sentence unit (i.e.
Searched %d directories. Found %d files or Searched %d
directories and found %d files rather than Found %d files in %d
directories) as some
19 matches
Mail list logo
