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: Aleksey Cheusov
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:07:20 +0200
> On Mar 29,  1:40pm, cheusov@xxxxxx (Aleksey Cheusov) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg

> |  Is there anybody who call uuencode as foobar? :)
> |  Seriously, if an independance of executable name is really your goal,
> |  close this PR.

> This suggestion is very similar to a suggestion from someone else a
> decade ago to remove err() and change it to fprintf(stderr + exit(
> for portability.  Get on with the program. If your OS of choice does
> not have setprogname() make them add it instead of making our own
> code "more portable".

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'...


P.S.
Do you use setprogname() and getprogname() in SUID executables too? ;)

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.

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