On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 18:56 +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 01:08 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > On 15/04/11 00:10, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > Svante Signell, le Thu 14 Apr 2011 23:18:32 +0200, a écrit : > > > > And I wouldn't do #ifdef #else #endif, since strdup is portable. > > > Just use it unconditionally instead of strcpy. > > > > I chose not to use it unconditionally, then I would have to rewrite > > major parts of this program. It contains very old code, first entry > > 1993, latest revision 2004. Since then it seems to have accumulated a > > lot of patches, the debian count is 22 (23 with mine). > > I don't understand. Why would using strdup() unconditionally require > more rewrite than using it only for GNU?
I mean that changing strcpy to strdup everywhere is a major rewrite of this old code. Of course I could use strdup for the GNU specific parts, but that would change the coding style!? I don't think I have the time or interest to rewrite this old code. Olaf: Why don't you take a look at the source code yourself to create your own opinion. And, anyways the Debian maintainer has not even acknowledged the patch, bug #622932 so why bother? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
