Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?

["Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/38327; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable
 [sg]etprogname?
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:38:41 -0500 (CDT)

 > Is there anybody who call uuencode as foobar? :)
 > Seriously, if an independance of executable name is really your goal,
 > close this PR.
 
 I can understand discussing this, but PR ticket system is wrong place to 
 discuss.
 
 NetBSD has a mix of hardcoded versus getprogname. Some hardcoded include:
 
 cat
 clri
 dd
 dmesg
 edlabel
 mount
 and several but not all mount_*
 pax
 tar (pax as tar)
 cpio (pax as cpio)
 ping6
 ps
 rcp
 resize_lfs
 routed
 savecore
 ttyflags
 tunefs
 
 (also I think brconfig uses __progname)
 
 Anyways this is the wrong place to discuss this.