Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> > I've just removed all tests for HAVE_FCNTL_H from coreutils. >> > It's been gone in at least one place since coreutils-5.0 (2004-04-02)
[actually, that should have been 2003-04-02, not 2004] >> The same applies to HAVE_UNISTD_H and unistd.h > > One platform still does not have <unistd.h>: It's Woe32 with the MSVC > compiler. It's unfortunately a major platform, and still alive. Perhaps it's not a popular enough build environment for packages using gnulib. Several existing modules include <unistd.h> unconditionally: lib/argp-parse.c lib/chdir-long.c lib/fts.c lib/getpass.c lib/openat.c lib/poll.c lib/utime.c and yet I haven't heard any complaints. > Also, <unistd.h> is less dependable for GNU programs than <fcntl.h>, > because someone creates a brand new operating system different in style > from Unix, he will typically implement the ISO C headers but not POSIX > <unistd.h>. (Some recent operating systems like BeOS or MacOS X have > a Unix underneath, but others don't.) IMHO, a new OS that does not provide a POSIX header like <unistd.h> does not deserve our consideration -- and isn't likely to get much from any other development community, either. > So for the sake of ease of porting to new OSes, I would leave HAVE_UNISTD_H > in place. Thanks for the info. I've made a note to wait a year. If there have still been no complaints, I'll remove them then. _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
