[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote:
> > OK to apply? These are the last five references within gnulib where
> > we did not assume the existance of errno.
>
> unsetenv was synced from coreutils. Do we prefer errno consistency or
> syncing? Help?
Hi Karl,
We want both :-)
I've just fix
> OK to apply? These are the last five references within gnulib where
> we did not assume the existance of errno.
unsetenv was synced from coreutils. Do we prefer errno consistency or
syncing? Help?
> > OK to apply? These are the last five references within gnulib where
> > we did not assume the existance of errno.
>
> Yes, please, for the patches that Bruno hasn't already applied.
> Thanks.
Done.
--
Eric Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
> OK to apply? These are the last five references within gnulib where
> we did not assume the existance of errno.
Yes, please, for the patches that Bruno hasn't already applied.
Thanks.
Eric Blake wrote:
> OK to apply?
Looks ok.
I applied your changes to unsetenv.c, strtol.c (shared with GNU gettext)
and unicodeio.c (for which I'm responsible), and this extra patch:
2006-06-17 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* setenv.m4 (gl_PREREQ_SETENV, gl_PREREQ_UNSETENV): Remove
OK to apply? These are the last five references within gnulib where
we did not assume the existance of errno.
lib/ChangeLog:
2006-06-16 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* unsetenv.c [!defined errno]: Assume errno.h declares errno.
* unicodeio.c [!defined errno]: Likewise.
