Hi Andrew,
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 2:28 AM, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> writes:
>>>>> On Jan 28, 2015, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2015, at 2:27 AM, Rainer Orth
>>>>>> <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Remove the definition of _XOPEN_SOURCE completely.
>>
>>>>>> I think I prefer this one…
>>
>>>>>> and there is no hint what host caused him to put the change in
>>>>>
>>>>> The 2005 timeframe suggests it was probably GNU/Linux
>>
>>>> I'm with Mike here: either we remove the _XOPEN_SOURCE definition now
>>
>>> It's been a week now since I posted the patches and there's still no
>>> conclusion which of the two alternatives to install.
>>
>> Well, my position is the removal of _XOPEN_SOURCE is the right patch.
>> I’ve not seen any substantive disagreement. I’d post and test that
>> patch. A build person, a libobjc person, a reasonably an affected target
>> person or a global person can approve in my book. I’m not any of them…
>> If Pinski is happy with my approving it, he can weigh in. I’d be happy
>> to approve it.
>
>
> I am happy with which ever approach is decided as the safest and most
> portable.
given that Mike and myself agree that removing _XOPEN_SOURCE completely
and, should weird systems that need particular values resurface, define
it only for those without breaking others, is the only safe and sane
approach, I've installed that variant.
Thanks.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
