Your message dated Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:03:00 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#325743: manpages-dev: strptime has the wrong #define?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Aug 2005 16:30:40 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 30 09:30:40 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from aldus.northnet.org (northnet.org) [64.19.76.42]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EA90R-0008Nk-00; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:30:40 -0700
Received: from andromeda [64.19.85.68] by northnet.org with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.15) id A9AB15D012A; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:30:35 -0400
Received: from pryzbyj by andromeda with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1EA7nc-00015k-ME
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:13:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:13:10 -0400
To: Debian BTS Submission <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: manpages-dev: strptime has the wrong #define?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: manpages-dev
Severity: normal
Version: 2.02-2
File: /usr/share/man/man3/strptime.3.gz
Tags: upstream
strptime.3 says:
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE /* glibc2 needs this */
#include <time.h>
char *strptime(const char *s, const char *format, struct tm *tm);
But, I had to #define __USE_XOPEN instead (after reading time.h).
Maybe those two #defines are somehow linked? I can't see that they
are. Or maybe -std=gnu99 or gcc4 is different? I don't know.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 325743-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Sep 2005 16:03:30 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 15 09:03:30 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from aldus.northnet.org (northnet.org) [64.19.76.42]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EFwCw-0008V0-00; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:03:30 -0700
Received: from andromeda [64.19.84.39] by northnet.org with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.15) id AB3C7B1E0088; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:03:08 -0400
Received: from pryzbyj by andromeda with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1EFwCS-00015a-Jd; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:03:00 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:03:00 -0400
To: Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#325743: manpages-dev: strptime has the wrong #define?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 02:36:02PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> tags 325743 wontfix
> thanks
>
> > strptime.3 says:
> >
> > #define _XOPEN_SOURCE /* glibc2 needs this */
> > #include <time.h>
> >
> > char *strptime(const char *s, const char *format, struct tm *tm);
> >
> > But, I had to #define __USE_XOPEN instead (after reading time.h).
> > Maybe those two #defines are somehow linked? I can't see that they
> > are. Or maybe -std=gnu99 or gcc4 is different? I don't know.
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> The man-page is correct here. Somewhere along the way, you
> are doing something wrong.
You are right; I had included some headers before #defining it. Bug
closed.
> Also, the __USE macros are never to be used in applications.
> Read <features.h>.
Good to know, thanks.
BTW, you had Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], which probably generated an
error.
--
Clear skies,
Justin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
