mark obsolete usage of fold
Peter S. Mazinger
ps.m at gmx.net
Sun Dec 11 21:26:10 UTC 2005
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, John Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:55:32 +0100 (CET), Peter S Mazinger
> <ps.m at gmx.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> There are several bugs I only see linked against uClibc 0.9.28.
> >do you refer maybe to not supporting *-progname (something w/ short,
> >can't recall now), so that gnu testsuites fail due to different errors?
> I don't know what Rob means, but like I said on the uclibc list,
> __progname is already defined in the uclibc init code, although the
> GNU aliases for it are not.
> Since an extern __progname is already available, changing error.c to
> output the basename of __progname gets the coreutils tests working
> right. Otherwise, many of them fail due to the simple fact that the
> tests expect to see the program name in the output.
> When I posted about this on the uclibc list, some of the response was
> downright inhospitable. I wonder if they like to hoard secrets, or if
> they're just ashamed of what little they do know.
You understood/reacted wrong imho. uClibc does not want to be GNU
compliant. it tries only to be SuSv3 compliant. There are no GNU
extensions expected to be added (ask Erik, he may decide otherwise), those
being already there are probably because w/o them you can't really use
uClibc in real world. If you come up w/ a SuSv3 addon, that is for sure be
I know about the test failures for GNU apps since a year, but I have no
interest to solve it myself.
Come up w/ a patch that is option guarded (CONFIG_GNU_COMPAT?), I can
imagine it either be added, or begin putting proposed stuff somewhere
into the repository.
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2
More information about the busybox