On Mon, 03 Dec 2001, David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> popt(), although not yet common or "standardized" yet offers us
> quite a bit more flexibility than the current getopt() gstyle argument
> benefits, is there any objection to including this with pilot-link, or
> building a dependancy on it within pilot-link? Or should be stick with
> getopt() and friends, and maintain local copies and portability?
The popt tarball is around 370KB - so pretty small compared to
pilot-link - I don't think size of the distribution is a problem.
But it would be interesting to know how portable it is
There is an encouraging paragraph in man popt
The popt library is highly portable and should work on any
POSIX platform. The latest version is always available
from: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/code/popt.
But that is immediately followed by the odd statement
It may be redistributed under either the GNU General Pub
lic License or the GNU Library General Public License, at
the distributor's discretion.
which seems different to COPYING (though hardly a problem.)
More encouraging is that popt is included in GNOME. As GNOME is known
to be very widely portable - Sun even distribute Solaris packages - I
hope this means the same assumption can be made about popt.
Disclaimer - I user pilot-link on SuSE Linux x86 so I don't really
care about any risk you take with other OSes :-)
Regards, David
_______________________________________________
Pilot-unix mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hcirisc.cs.binghamton.edu/mailman/listinfo/pilot-unix
