Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +(for example free BSD variants), and it is nice to support other
Why not mention NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD by name? There are other
free BSD variants too, which are less popular, and it doesn't make
sense to spend much time on them IMHO.
I thought this was more commonly known
Not by me.
I'm unsure if it's worth bothering.
As always, I'd rather not occupy rms' time if we can avoid it.
In the absence of any clamor to make this tiny change in the GNU
standards.texi, I'd rather skip it.
Thanks,
karl
Karl Berry wrote:
> * doc/standards.texi (System Portability): Spell out `free BSD
> variants', instead of using the term `*BSD'.
>
> Before I bother rms with this, can you please explain to me the
> objection to "*BSD"? I'd never heard that before. NetBSD and OpenBSD
> do
Hi Karl,
* Karl Berry wrote on Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:19:41PM CEST:
>
> * doc/standards.texi (System Portability): Spell out `free BSD
> variants', instead of using the term `*BSD'.
>
> Before I bother rms with this, can you please explain to me the
> objection to "*BSD"
Hi Ralf,
* doc/standards.texi (System Portability): Spell out `free BSD
variants', instead of using the term `*BSD'.
Before I bother rms with this, can you please explain to me the
objection to "*BSD"? I'd never heard that before. NetBSD and OpenBSD
don't like being lump
* Bruno Haible wrote on Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:07:01PM CEST:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> >
> > Would WOE32_NATIVE be a better name?
>
> Many people believe code should be neutral.
FWIW, I agree. After all, POSIX_ME_HARDER was dropped, too.
I removed occurrences of M$VC and *BSD from the Libtool sour
