mark obsolete usage of fold
jakelly at shtc.net
Sun Dec 11 22:04:25 UTC 2005
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:26:10 +0100 (CET), Peter S Mazinger
<ps.m at gmx.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>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 your "real world" includes GNU coreutils tests, uclibc is not
>Come up w/ a patch that is option guarded (CONFIG_GNU_COMPAT?)
Printing the program name in the error.c message is a trivial change,
hardly an "extension." But it makes a big difference if you want to
run coreutils tests.
>I can imagine it either be added, or begin putting proposed stuff
>somewhere into the repository.
I've solved the problem for myself, so I'll just maintain my own
patches, and the uclibc devs can stay in their comfort zone.
More information about the busybox