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

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

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

From: Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable 
[sg]etprogname?
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:37:27 +0200

 >  On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
  >> There is no reason to use __progname or argv[0] or anything similar in
  >> uu{en,de}code. Constant strings "uuencode" and "uudecode" are enough
  >> because they are used only for printing a usage message.
 >  
 >  Try this:
 >  
 >      $ cp -p /usr/bin/uuencode /tmp/foobar
 >      $ /tmp/foobar
 >      usage: foobar [-m] [infile] remotefile
 >  
 >  If we followed your sugestion, the usage message would have referred to
 >  "uuencode" instead of "foobar".
 
 Is there anybody who call uuencode as foobar? :)
 Seriously, if an independance of executable name is really your goal,
 close this PR.
 
 Anyway I'm waiting for USE_FEATURE+=[sg]etprogname in pkgsrc to remove
 these patches.
 
 -- 
 Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.