Subject: Re: ftw()
From: Nicholas Wourms <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: "Gerrit P. Haase" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:38:42 -0400

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:37:53PM -0400, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
>>Le lun 04 ao? 2003 20:05:45 GMT, Nicholas Wourms a tapot? sur son clavier :
>>
>>>That being said, My suggestion to Samuel would be to investigate the
>>>FreeBSD cvs repo to see if they have implimented ftw() in their libc,
>>>since they have a more "free" license and aren't GPL-infected.
>>
>>It seems to be still worked on, and not available in their cvs :/
> 
> 
> What is with the selective reading style in this thread?

Not caring, maybe I was cranky...

> I saw that a referenced LGPL license is unacceptable for cygwin.
 >
> Gerrit responds with a pointer to a BSD licensed version.  Asks if
> it is acceptable.
> 
> I say probably but you'd have to ask the newlib mailing list.
> 
> Nicholas responds eight hours after this interchange.  He opines that I
> probably don't know about the Red Hat employees who run the glibc
> project and offers that somebody should find a BSD licensed version of
> ftw.

My point was that it wouldn't hurt to ask.  I'm well aware that you know 
who these people are.

> Now, a day later, we find that Gerrit's email has again been ignored
> and the Wourms plan is unworkable.

I saw his email, but that version looked more like a kludge then 
anything else.  When I mentioned FBSD, it was because their C99/SUSv3 
standards page indicated they had a working verion being developed. 
Obviously, this version is being worked on privately.  IMHO, the correct 
way to do it is the OBSD way, by making ftw a wrapper around fts. 
Although not currently a set standard in the scope of the SUSv3, fts was 
supposed to have been adopted.  Apparently, they can't come to any 
consensus @ the Austin group to get it ratified, so it seems to have 
been put in "permanent" limbo.  Since Gerrit suggested using OpenBSD in 
his follow up, I decided to go that route.  Anyhow, I've been working on 
it over the last couple of days, and I've almost got it compiling. 
There will still be some issues, since the BSD opendir2 implimentation 
is more robust, thus leaving some missing macros and structs which need 
to be worked around.  I'll post a patch later if people are curious or 
want to help out.  Currently, I'm stuck with an undefined reference to 
_lstat error, which makes very little sense since I have it defined in 
_syslist.h, but it still gives me the same undefined error when linking 
the dll.

I also have an update for my param.h patch, as I forgot to add the 
global definition for NBBY.

Cheers,
Nicholas

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/