Dan Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:05:46PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote: >> ""Wolfram A. Kraushaar"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > :) >> > >> > What about using popt instead of getopt in a future version? >> >> Popt looks pretty neat, and it's small and portable and gives us long >> options without relying on GNU getopt_long. So, if we decide to do long >> options, we should probably move to popt at the same time. >> >> Currently in CVS, and waiting to be reborn in 2.1, is the Sieve command >> line tool. We might consider popt-ing it first, since it probably will >> need to be rewritten before 2.2 comes out -- but if not, let's not make >> unneeded work. > > You make it seems like using getopt_long has difficulty in which it really > has none.
Popt gives us help text and a little bit more portability. Aaron --
