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

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

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

From: christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, 
netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, 
        cheusov%tut.by@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable 
[sg]etprogname?
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:42:04 -0400

 On Mar 29,  1:40pm, cheusov%tut.by@localhost (Aleksey Cheusov) wrote:
 -- Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg
 
 |  Is there anybody who call uuencode as foobar? :)
 |  Seriously, if an independance of executable name is really your goal,
 |  close this PR.
 
 This suggestion is very similar to a suggestion from someone else a decade
 ago to remove err() and change it to fprintf(stderr + exit( for portability.
 Get on with the program. If your OS of choice does not have setprogname()
 make them add it instead of making our own code "more portable".
 
 christos