Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!EU.net!uunet!rwwa.com!not-for-mail From: witr@rwwa.com (Robert Withrow) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Request to ``ports'' developers Date: 31 May 1994 11:56:51 -0400 Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates Lines: 21 Message-ID: <2sfmo3$5e0@meatball.rwwa.com> References: <2s291q$pnl@meatball.rwwa.com> <2s37a4$mp9@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <VIXIE.94May27220527@office.home.vix.com> Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com NNTP-Posting-Host: meatball.rwwa.com In article <VIXIE.94May27220527@office.home.vix.com>, vixie@vix.com (Paul A Vixie) writes: |> As long as we're making pleas... |> |> The "ports" I've seen were often extremely sloppy. Rather than #ifdef |> something for "posix" or "ansi" or (BSD >= 199103), macros such as __bsdi__, |> FreeBSD, and NetBSD were used. All well and good, but an orthogonal issue. All *I* want are CVS-generated patches so I can port new versions of already ported code to FreeBSD. I assume that these patches will eventually be sent back to the maintainer/owner of the programs, and *they* will decide how/if they want to do the conditionalizing for support of many platforms. The one doesn't need to become involved with the other... -- Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430 R.W. Withrow Associates, 319 Lynnway, Lynn MA 01901 USA, Net: witr@rwwa.COM