From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Feb 6 12:26:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA02607 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02585; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id HAA02499; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:19:37 +1100 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:19:37 +1100 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199702062019.HAA02499@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, chuckr@glue.umd.edu Subject: Re: conditionally including Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org, imp@village.org, obrien@NUXI.com Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> >Yes, but this whole thing got started because the #ifdef __FreeBSD__ >> >was slowly turning into >> > #if defined(__OpenBSD__) || defined(__NetBSD__) || defined(__FreeBSD__) >> >in a bunch of places due to those projects riding along on the FreeBSD >> >port's coat tails. >> >> Maybe include unconditionally? I'm not sure why I mentioned >> the __FreeBSD__ ifdef above. I've never liked ifdefing on the OS - >> it isn't necessary for one OS and gives too-large ifdefs for more than >> 2 OS's. You'll still need large ifdefs if configuration depends on the >> value of `BSD' and the value is OS-dependent. > >No, that wouldn't work. We're talking about something we'd ask authors of >packages that weren't written for FreeBSD to include (and to include for >NetBSD and OpenBSD) to get their packages to work with ours. This isn't But they certainly should accept anything with __FooBSD__ or BSD >= mmm or __FooBSD_version >= nnn. That would give 100-line ifdefs to support 100 OS's. It's also useless for communicating what is different in FooBSD. Bruce