Collin, > But having fts_.in.h generate fts.h feels strange to me. > > Jim, what do you think about renaming the file to fts.in.h which > generates fts.h?
Neither of these two is what I propose for the short term. What I propose is to have fts.in.h being preprocessed into fts_.h. So that - we follow the naming scheme *.in.h of other header files in gnulib, - packages like coreutils and findutils are not broken. > Since the Gnulib functions are always used, we can just > skip the #include_next <fts.h>. > > We can provide a fts_.h that just includes fts.h similar to > getprogname.h that just includes stdlib.h. That would be an option for the future, but I don't think it is urgent to debate today. Bruno
