Apparently the getopt.h has been cleaned up in later OpenBSD, FreeBSD releases. The Todd Miller 2002 getopt_long.c version is the same, so that looks like a clear choice.
Thanks, - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:giffu...@tutopia.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 14:09 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: How to do with glibc-2.1.3 in AOOo? On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:43:09 -0700, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > Most stock implementations on Windows seem to have the original BSD > license. > Including "MSVC" in the search produces more specific results. Mesa uses OpenBSD's version which is a 2 clause BSD license. http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/src/getopt Readdir_r is here: http://code.google.com/p/dirent/ > > The getopt.h license has the original BSD license, so don't use that. > Use one that either has no license or is derived some other way. > FWIW; The BSDs have removed the "advertisement clause" but I have to say I never found it problematic, just another political stand from the FSF. It shouldn't be an issue for Apache and it"s LGPL/MPL compatible so it shouldn't be an issue for LO either. Cheers, Pedro. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro F. Giffuni > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:23 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; > Cc: 'Michael Stahl' > Subject: RE: How to do with glibc-2.1.3 in AOOo? > > Ahem ... > > Guys; > > --- On Wed, 9/14/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > ... >> If you list the functions you have in >> mind, and the names of the headers normally used to >> introduce their signatures, I will double-check the VC++ >> 2008 and VC++ 2010 libraries to see what the status >> is. >> > > We are far from being the only unixy port to Windows: > A quick google for "getopt_long Windows" returns: > > > http://opensource.apple.com/source/Kerberos/Kerberos-47/KerberosFramework/Kerberos5/Sources/util/windows/getopt_long.c > > I think it's a matter of someone with a Windows compiler > to just go over the code and build a small compatibility > library. > > Can we first merge mingwport35 CWS, though? I suspect that > would touch some of those files and I don't want > to introduce conflicts to the Oracle updates just yet. > > Pedro.
