[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: xwpe -> want autoconf? (fwd)
> > Jan is going to create YA spinoff for xwpe, and amongst
> > the first shot is autoconf. Well, I have done quite a
> > bit of autoconf/automake hacking lately, so I could
> > easily contribute full autoconf support for the
> > xwpe-1.5.x.
What do you mean by autoconf support for xwpe-1.5.x? autoconf is
already used to compile xwpe. As for using it for project files,
I don't see how that would be useful. Personally what I was thinking
of for project files is to make them full blown makefiles. For the
most part users would just add files and perhaps edit the variables
(like CFLAGS). If however you wanted to add support for a different
compiler you could by making a new rule. Or you edit the rules for
some weird modifications you need.
> I have related suggestion on this:
> instead of using tempnam, use mkstemp. This recommends many manuals, but
> openbsd only warns about this :) So when hacking autoconf forxwpe 1.5.x,
> what about adding check for mkstemp, and try to use first mkstemp, then
> tempnam and if none is available, than xwpe internal function ?
Are the "never use this function" in the linux man pages new? Don't
remember seeing them. mkstemp doesn't quite do what xwpe needs. It
creates a file whereas xwpe creates a directory. You could on course
delete the file and recreate as a directory but then you "warn" users
about the name you want allowing them to create it. The only minus I
see with mkstemp is that it is listed as conforming to BSD 4.3.
Generally I look for POSIX or System V. (Why? No real good reason.
System V is generally more POSIX like and BSD created that stupid
BTW you might want to chose a different name than pedit. There are
several programs that use that name include a Programmer's Editor I
(I haven't had a chance to look at your source yet or the question
about one of the xwpe functions.)