"Matthias Andree" <matthias.and...@gmx.de> writes: > I've talked to Theodore Y. Ts'o, who is the sysutils/e2fsprogs > upstream maintainer and proposed to remove the _XOPEN_SOURCE > definition (my idea was that the code shouldn't be claiming standards > compliance while it uses non-standard headers), but he refused that > (since it would break the e2fsprogs build on Solaris).
He's right. You misunderstand _XOPEN_SOURCE; it does not mean "my program complies with X/Open blah", it means "my program requires the facilities provided by X/Open blah". The problem lies in FreeBSD's headers, which don't implement namespace separation correctly. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
