Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 18:56 +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 01:08 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > > On 15/04/11 00:10, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > Svante Signell, le Thu 14 Apr 2011 23:18:32 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > And I wouldn't do #ifdef #else #endif, since strdup is portable. > > > > Just use it unconditionally instead of strcpy. > > > > > > I chose not to use it unconditionally, then I would have to > > > rewrite major parts of this program. It contains very old code, > > > first entry 1993, latest revision 2004. Since then it seems to > > > have accumulated a lot of patches, the debian count is 22 (23 with > > > mine). > > > > I don't understand. Why would using strdup() unconditionally require > > more rewrite than using it only for GNU? > > I mean that changing strcpy to strdup everywhere is a major rewrite of > this old code. Who talked about changing it *everywhere*?! Your patch changes it in exactly one place -- only that you made that change conditional on __GNU__, which seems unnecessary. > And, anyways the Debian maintainer has not even acknowledged the > patch, bug #622932 so why bother? How do you know? Just because you didn't get a response yet, doesn't mean the maintainer won't include it in the next upload. Either way, this kind of attitude will certainly not motivate him to care more :-) -antrik- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org