Proposal to restore traditional BSD behavior in <strings.h>.

[David O'Brien]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 06:06:25PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >At 10:44 AM -0700 10/16/04, David O'Brien wrote:
> >
> >>I'd like to restore the traditional BSD behavior that <strings.h>
> >>includes the content of <string.h> in addition to the BSD bcmp,
> >>et. al.  We changed our <strings.h> between 4.x and 5.x and now
> >>that we're at 5-STABLE I'm finding software that built fine on
> >>4.x has an issue on 5.x.
> >
> >
> >I think it is definitely too late to do this for 5.3-RELEASE,
> >because we have no idea what software might be compiling fine
> >right now, but may break due to namespace conflicts if <strings.h>
> >starts pulling in <string.h>.
> >
> >It looks like 5.x has gone 2 and a half years with <strings.h> not
> >including <string.h>, and if we also ship 5.3-release in that state
> >then I suspect there isn't much point in switching back after
> >5.3-release.  I have no particular objection to the *idea*, but I
> >think we are past the point were we could make such a change.
> >
> 
> We are indeed past the point for doing this for 5.3 and also RELENG_5.

Why?  It is a bug that BSD strings.h doesn't include definintions for
str*.  Bugs can't be fixed in RELENG_5?  I never asked for it to be fixed
in 5.3.
 
-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)