On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 07:36:43AM -0400, Igor Khavkine wrote: > Shouldn't concerns about portability be in the minds of upstream maintainers?
Yes, but we should lead with good example. I always try to mimic the upstream source in functionality and style as close as I am able. This also increases the chance that the support will be added timely. > What we can do is fix the problem for Hurd first in a manner which is as > close > to The Right Thing as possible and submit the patches to upstream > maintainers. Yes, but use of __GNU__ for glibc/posix items is almost never close the The Right Thing :) What you are fixing with this is not a Hurd issue, but a POSIX incompatibility issue, which is triggered by the Hurds implementation of POSIX. > There are just too many possible > systems out there to support by the few people who port packages to Hurd. I am not talking about supporting all systems possible. In some cases, conditionalizing on __GNU__ is justified, but the order of preference is something like "adding a configure check", "using standardized interfaces" (as pathconf) and then a long time nothing, and then "conditionalizing on __GNU__". > And > refusing to use something like asprintf, is just duplicating code which is > already in the glibc. It should be up to the maintainers if they want to > eliminate the glibc dependencies. You are right here. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
