Re: Re: Autoconf and differences between GNU getopt and OpenBSD getopt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Simon Josefsson wrote:

>Derek Robert Price <derek@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>Do BSD really have getopt_long_only?  If so, then the getopt.m4 need
>>>to be improved...
>>
>>
>>According to Alex, yes, it does.
>
>
>Ok, then getopt need to be fixed.
>
>But it seems bad style to replace a system getopt unless there is
>something wrong with it?  In the POSIX sense, I mean.
>
>(Below I'm assuming the code Alex posted only exploited GNU specific
>features.  If the code only relied on POSIX semantics, it seems that a
>smaller fix to getopt.m4 is sufficient.)
>
>Perhaps we can create two modules: getopt and getopt-gnu.  This is
>similar to getpass and getpass-gnu.  The getopt module would only be
>enabled if POSIX compliant getopt and getopt_long_only are missing.
>The getopt-gnu would be enabled when the system provided functions
>don't implement the GNU interface of getopt*.
>
>Thoughts?


Just thought I would point out that the current getopt module was
attempting to be the "new" getopt-gnu you describe since prior to the
BSD change, getopt_long_only meant a GNU implementation of getopt, in
case anyone had missed it.

Regardless, I wouldn't object to two modules, as long as one will
provide a GNU-style getopt on recent Open & Free BSDs.

Cheers,

Derek

- --
                *8^)

Email: derek@xxxxxxxxxxx

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBcCKrLD1OTBfyMaQRAuX7AKD8zNIdoetFs2zI6ummp0tHw2Y8NwCfcuDh
v8noLIsC4kKxhSJQKAlnWI4=
=ByH5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----