Subject: Re: libexec/rmail/rmail.c err()...
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Luke Mewburn <email@example.com>
Date: 01/12/2001 09:56:24
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:48:03PM -0800, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> so i notice that on 10/10 or thereabouts, libexec/rmail/rmail.c was
> changed by is (with a patch apparently by sommerfeld) to add a
> 'printf' attribute to its local definition of err().
> looking at its version of err(), it looks like it should have
> identical behaviour to normal libc err().
> A comment says:
> * The err(3) routine is included here deliberately to make this code
> * a bit more portable.
> However, that comment dates back to 1993, and it's not clear to me why
> we should do that for this one specific program when we haven't
> approximately anywhere else in our source tree.
> I'm thinking that that local err() should be nuked. Any objections?
there's also a bunch of other programs in the tree that have their own
err()/warn() functions which either duplicate what the libc versions
do or are slightly different (they may syslog as well as print to
stderr), but have similar interfaces to the libc versions.
Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.wasabisystems.com
Luke Mewburn <email@example.com> http://www.netbsd.org
Wasabi Systems - providing NetBSD sales, support and service.