On Fri, Dec 19, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> popt competes for mind share with getopt, and
> particularly with GNU getopt_long, the Debian added borkedness (jmnsho).
> Should I add a getopt(3)/getopt_long(3) wrapper onto
> popt to lower the barrier to converting from getopt_long(3)?
> I personally don't care a bit because I use popt instead
> of getopt_long(3) all the time and everywhere.
> But the wrapper (with AutoFu disablers) is trivially arranged
> if there is interest.

Ah, yes, as long as one can still build a POPT without these two symbols
(to avoid conflicts) this would be a really nice addition for POPT. I
would say: go for it as long as is an _optional_ feature!

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

POPT Library                                           http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List                       popt-devel@rpm5.org

Reply via email to