On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 1) What "interesting portability targets" have I left out? I only
> went back in time as far as FreeBSD 7, and I didn't even try to get my
> hands on any of the surviving proprietary Unixes; is this too
> shortsighted?
>
I can set you up with
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I've been doing research into the cross-platform availability of
> header files that are commonly probed for in Autoconf scripts.
Major update: The technique I was using for the blog post, and the
simplified technique I sug
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
> On 03/15/2013 09:13 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On 2013-03-15 8:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>> aio.h and sys/mman.h are not available everywhere
>>
>>
>> aio.h certainly, but are you aware of a *specific Unix-like system*
>> which is i
On 03/15/2013 09:13 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On 2013-03-15 8:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
aio.h and sys/mman.h are not available everywhere
aio.h certainly, but are you aware of a *specific Unix-like system*
which is in current use and does not provide ?
Unix-like! Not all OSes are Unix-like
On 2013-03-15 21:18, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 2013-03-15 9:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to chime in with the fact that it's working just fine to
>> use one of said UNIX-like portability environments and have Autoconf
>> probe MSVC directly.
>
> This is relevant to my interests ;)
On 2013-03-15 9:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
I just wanted to chime in with the fact that it's working just fine to
use one of said UNIX-like portability environments and have Autoconf
probe MSVC directly.
This is relevant to my interests ;) How do you smooth over the
differences in command lin
On 2013-03-15 12:05 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Zack Weinberg writes:
I think we should try to come up with a principled cutoff for how old is
too old, though. I started this thinking POSIX.1-2001 (including XSI,
but maybe not any other options) was a reasonable place to draw the
line, but it turn
On 2013-03-15 8:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
aio.h and sys/mman.h are not available everywhere
aio.h certainly, but are you aware of a *specific Unix-like system*
which is in current use and does not provide ? That header
is mandatory in POSIX-2008 (although not before then) and the last ti
On 2013-03-15 6:13 AM, Thomas Jahns wrote:
On 03/15/2013 02:19 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I've been doing research into the cross-platform availability of
header files that are commonly probed for in Autoconf scripts.
Results so far are here:
http://www.owlfolio.org/possibly-useful/notes-o
On 2013-03-15 05:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Zack Weinberg writes:
>
>> I think we should try to come up with a principled cutoff for how old is
>> too old, though. I started this thinking POSIX.1-2001 (including XSI,
>> but maybe not any other options) was a reasonable place to draw the
>> line, b
On 03/15/2013 11:13 AM, Thomas Jahns wrote:
On 03/15/2013 02:19 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I've been doing research into the cross-platform availability of
header files that are commonly probed for in Autoconf scripts.
Results so far are here:
http://www.owlfolio.org/possibly-useful/notes-o
On 03/15/2013 02:19 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I've been doing research into the cross-platform availability of
> header files that are commonly probed for in Autoconf scripts.
> Results so far are here:
> http://www.owlfolio.org/possibly-useful/notes-on-the-cross-platform-avail
On 03/14/2013 08:18 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> we should try to come up with a principled cutoff for how old is too old
A good rule of thumb is: if the maintainer doesn't fix bugs in
the software any more, it's too old. So, for example, in March 2012
Oracle stopped fixing bugs in Solaris 8, whic
Zack Weinberg writes:
> I think we should try to come up with a principled cutoff for how old is
> too old, though. I started this thinking POSIX.1-2001 (including XSI,
> but maybe not any other options) was a reasonable place to draw the
> line, but it turns out Android omits a bunch of that (an
On Thursday, March 14, 2013, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 06:19 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > 1) What "interesting portability targets" have I left out? I only
> > went back in time as far as FreeBSD 7, and I didn't even try to get my
> > hands on any of the surviving proprietary Unixes; is
On 03/14/2013 06:19 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 1) What "interesting portability targets" have I left out? I only
> went back in time as far as FreeBSD 7, and I didn't even try to get my
> hands on any of the surviving proprietary Unixes; is this too
> shortsighted?
Yes, I think so. We regularly
I've been doing research into the cross-platform availability of
header files that are commonly probed for in Autoconf scripts.
Results so far are here:
http://www.owlfolio.org/possibly-useful/notes-on-the-cross-platform-availability-of-header-files/
Based on what I've learned, I
17 matches
Mail list logo
