Re: OFFTOPIC: e2fsprogs and +2Gb partitions
Dominik Strasser (bm424953@muenchen.org)
Sat, 13 Jun 1998 20:24:10 +0200
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > You are without a doubt wrong to have not included as close to full
> > > libc5 compatibility for -D_LINUX_SOURCE.
> >
> > Following this path would for ever manifested that software written on
> > Linux is not portable. This always was wrong, all the hacks necessary
> > to run software written are damaging. You certainly don't want to
> > tell me that living with -D_LINUX_SOURCE is better than living without
> > -D_LINUX_SOURCE after a phase of adaption, do you?
>
> Why not. How is that different from _BSD_SOURCE, _POSIX_SOURCE etc. The
> _blah_source exists because unlike you the standards committees are
> aware of the cost of updating and maintaining software as well as the fact
> that other standards do not always fully represent the capabilities of
> the system itself.
In the header files I have seen, the _blah_SOURCE-macros are mainly to
be compliant to the various test suite for each blah standard.
Dominik
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu