"Bruno Haible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For the special case of nanosleep, one might want nanosleep declared
>> even if the nanosleep module isn't being used, for the benefit of
>> hosts that define nanosleep but don't declare it.
>
> Huh? If the program uses nanosleep(), it needs the gnulib
"Bruno Haible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I know gnulib never promised to provide code that worked without the
>> gnulib-tool machinery, but previously the tweaks to make that work
>> anyway was small. Now they are larger. Before, you'd typically only
>> have to copy
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I know gnulib never promised to provide code that worked without the
> gnulib-tool machinery, but previously the tweaks to make that work
> anyway was small. Now they are larger. Before, you'd typically only
> have to copy the source code and the M4 files, and arrange for
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I'm a bit dubious about this one, as it adds to the .h maintenance
> burden and I'm not sure the benefit is worth the cost.
> ...
> The other parts I'm ambivalent about.
So let's drop the idea. I was hesitating too.
> For the special case of nanosleep, one might want nanoslee
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon, I have not included patches to gc.h and hmac.h, because I don't
> understand these modules well enough.
After thinking more about this, prompted by the caveat that this may
not work perfectly with multiple gnulib directories in the same
package (w
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2007-01-01 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * lib/timespec.h (nanosleep): Declare only if GNULIB_NANOSLEEP.
I'm a bit dubious about this one, as it adds to the .h maintenance
burden and I'm not sure the benefit is worth the cost.
For the spe
