[gpm] socklen_t handling

Nico Schottelius nico-gpm@schottelius.org
Mon Jun 2 00:01:48 CEST 2008

Hello Mike!

Mike Frysinger [Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:23:20AM -0400]:
> is there a reason the usage of socklen_t in gpm is inconsistent ?

"it's all about history..."

> if the code 
> base you're building against doesnt supply socklen_t, it's a great big pile 
> imo (this is after all required by POSIX).  if we want to support such crappy 
> systems, we should move the socklen_t check into configure and have the 
> source assume it's available.

I think that's a good solution (autoconf/assume it is there/exit error
if not).


Think about Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).

PGP: BFE4 C736 ABE5 406F 8F42  F7CF B8BE F92A 9885 188C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/gpm/attachments/20080602/0a30c54c/attachment.pgp 

More information about the gpm mailing list