Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/www/c-icap

[nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 02:37:52PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> "Nia Alarie" <nia%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
> 
> > Log Message:
> > c-icap: Fails with C23 default language.
> 
> > -USE_LANGUAGES=		c
> > +FORCE_C_STD=		gnu89
> 
> (I didn't comment on the first one, but this now seems like a
> larger-scale change.)
> 
> It seems the root cause is compilers defaulting to a newer std.  That
> seems obviously buggy but not something we can address.
> 
> Given how compilers are, a package failing to probe for and set --std is
> an upstream bug.
> 
> I think any FORCE_C_STD needs a comment.  It's only set because of a
> bug.  "fails when compiler defaults to C23" seems like it's it, but that
> should travel with the variable definition.  It will not be obvious to
> someone in a few years, and maybe not even next week.
> 
> It's not obvious why you chose gnu89, or why that's right.  Upstream
> should document what it needs, but it probably doesn't.  I would think
> that C99 would be a better choice, if it works, as I view that as the
> standard C approach these days, vs too-old-you-really-shouldn't of C89,
> and the newfangled-is-this-really-necessary C11 and especially C17 and
> later.  I realize gnu extensions might be needed, but I think it's
> better if they are turned on if they are needed.
>a

I honestly really do not care what you think.