From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 5 05:17:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA14124 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from po1.glue.umd.edu (root@po1.glue.umd.edu [129.2.128.44]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA14105; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gilligan.eng.umd.edu (gilligan.eng.umd.edu [129.2.103.21]) by po1.glue.umd.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA01610; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:17:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by gilligan.eng.umd.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA12559; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:17:18 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: gilligan.eng.umd.edu: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:17:18 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@gilligan.eng.umd.edu To: "David O'Brien" cc: Warner Losh , FreeBSD ports list , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: conditionally including In-Reply-To: <19970205003343.YB13323@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, David O'Brien wrote: > Warner Losh writes: > > In message <19970202135048.PN07710@dragon.nuxi.com> David O'Brien writes: > > : to get a new cpp symbol added (like __44bsd__ or something). > > > > This is a bad idea, since it has lost a lot of its potential meaning > > with so many 44bsd derived systems that pick and chose between 4.4 and > > 4.4 Lite 2. > > Then what would you suggest? Are they really more different than all the > various sysVr4 that define __svr4__? How close is Solaris, UnixWare, and > Irix? > > I'm just trying to find something that will cover all the 4.4BSD derived > OS's. What are the big divergances from each other that __44bsd__ > wouldn't cover (from an application standpoint)? Remember I'm trying to > catch things like sys_errlist[], termios, /var/mail, /usr/sbin/sendmail, > etc. > > Everyone will acknowlege that for kernel stuff __FreeBSD__, etc. > should be used. But I still think __44bsd__ is fine where we would > already do the #if (BSD > xyx) test or defined(__FreeBSD__) || > defined(__NetBSD__) ,etc. David, I don't understand why you don't want to use __FreeBSD__, __NetBSD__, and __OpenBSD__ for non-kernel stuff. The __44bsd__ thing doesn't exist, and if you start it, 75% of FreeBSD folks and ALL of everyone else in NetBSD and OpenBSD will be out in the cold. I probably misunderstand part, but what functionality will be gained from adding __44bsd__? I want to note that the approach I'm pushing works now for Xfree86 just fine. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------