netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprog

Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?
From: Christos Zoulas
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:35:17 UTC
Newsgroups: fa.netbsd.bugs

The following reply was made to PR bin/38327; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: christos@xxxxxxxxxx (Christos Zoulas)
To: Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov@xxxxxx>
Cc: gnats-bugs@xxxxxxxxxx, gnats-admin@xxxxxxxxxx, netbsd-bugs@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable 
[sg]etprogname?
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:33:32 -0400

 On Mar 29,  5:07pm, cheusov@xxxxxx (Aleksey Cheusov) wrote:
 -- Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg
 
 | I had nothing agaist err() or getprogname() in NetBSD's libc.  I just
 | didn't see any reason to use getprogname() and setprogname() in
 | exactly two .c files: uuencode.c and uudecode.c. I've already
 | answered: if an independance of executable name is your goal, feel
 | free to close this PR. If somebody call 'uuencode' a 'foobar'...
 
 Yes, we like all programs to not hard-code their program name, so that
 they behave consistently.
 
 christos
 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>