|
|
The following reply was made to PR bin/38327; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov@xxxxxx>
To: christos@xxxxxxxxxx (Christos Zoulas)
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 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.
|
|