At 17:39 Uhr -0700 23.01.2002, Justin Hallett wrote: >I ported GNU getopt or gengetopt and I used the getopt.c, getopt.h and >getopt1.c to port lftp and fix a few other ports that use GNU getopt, GNU >getopt provide getopt_long which libSystem.dylib doesn't have. I propose >making gengetopt essential so that we can add a UpdateGNUgetopt:.
I am strongly opposed to it. I just don't see how this is essential in any way. The set of essential packages should be kept as short as possible. There is no compelling reason I could see that would make this essential, but if anybody sees one, mention it. Oh, and the fact that you want to add a fink field that would require it doesn't count as an argument, IMHO. > Like >the UpdateConfigGuess and so on. If any porters are having a problem with >undefined symbol getopt_long, this will fix it. I will be adding >gengetopt to CVS after i send this email. But Max asked to to ask what >everyone thought of making it essential so that I could add the >UpdateGNUgetopt portion, because I can't assume it's installed if it's not >essetial, well I'm sure you guys get the point, anyhow I guess it's a sort >of a poll, to find out if it's a good addition to fink. I know lftp >wouldn't need a patch with this fix. If we start adding features to fink for every single time we have to patch something, then we would need no patches at all, but fink would become unmanagable bloat ware. Please list all packages you know that would actually benefit from this patch. If this list is shorter than say 5 entries, please explain why you can't just patch them on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
