From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 17 01:16:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D70316A4CE for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:16:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE7C43D31 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:16:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9H1G8wr006207 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:16:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i9H1G8sn006206 for freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:16:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:16:08 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <20041017011608.GA6140@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20041016174419.GA96297@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041016183202.GA76917@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041016183202.GA76917@VARK.MIT.EDU> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Subject: Re: Proposal to restore traditional BSD behavior in . X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:16:09 -0000 On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 02:32:02PM -0400, David Schultz wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > > I'd like to restore the traditional BSD behavior that > > includes the content of in addition to the BSD bcmp, et. al. > > We changed our between 4.x and 5.x and now that we're at > > 5-STABLE I'm finding software that built fine on 4.x has an issue on 5.x. > > It has been this way for 2.5 years, and nobody has complained > until now AFAIK. Therefore, it seems unlikely that there's enough > affected unportable software out there to justify undoing the > efforts at reducing namespace pollution now. > > Moreover, there's a *lot* of pollution in string.h, where as > strings.h has very little. Polluting strings.h again increases > the chances that portable applications that use strings.h will > break due to naming conflicts. An application using is only portable across BSD's. isn't POSIX. I totally don't understand why we made a that is incompatible with our BSD breathern. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)