Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!petunia!news
From: jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: BSD and HPUX, The Questions Continue...
Message-ID: <28356926.3abe@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 18 May 91 17:49:26 GMT
References: <1991May2.202710.5152@odin.diku.dk> <67870026@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com>
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407
Lines: 22



In an article decot@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) wrote:
>Anyway, use of BSD functions doesn't imply "sloppy programming style",
>just "BSD programming style".  We're trying to minimize the pain required
>for importing BSD and Sun applications.  The only things we want to force
>-lBSD for is when conflicting functions are used, such as setpgrp() and
>signal().

I don't understand.  I just wasted many tens of hours trying to port a
large package (the PP X.400 system) to HP/UX, which broke signal()
because I was trying to use -lBSD in order to get the b*() functions.
I finally had to take out -lBSD and use macros for the b* stuff.
Admittedly the package was not totally BSD-ish, in that it had a compile
option for SYS5, which only addressed part of the BSD-SYS5 issues.

Why would you want to force -lBSD when it breaks SYS5 code?

-- 
John Dudeck                                              "You can only push
jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu                             simplicity so far."
ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549                -- AT&T promotional brochure