FreeBSD-5.1 problem identified
fourdan at xfce.org
Thu Aug 7 00:25:54 CEST 2003
Please don't. It's not logical IMO. If freeBSD 5.1 supports sigaction
then one should expect it to work. If it doesn't work, then fix FreeBSD.
If it doesn't support sigaction, then AC_CHECK_FUNCS([sigaction]) should
return false and then we can safely fallback to old style signal().
What you seem to say is that sigaction is some kind of a stub in FreeBSD
5.1 which sounds very surprising...
It needs some more investigation I think.
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 20:47, edscott wilson garcia wrote:
> On mi? 2003-08-06 at 13:34, edscott wilson garcia wrote:
> > If anybody has a powerful reason why I should not fix them as well, I
> > will go ahead and do so in a few hours.
> That does not look right. Maybe a triple negative:
> If nobody *does not* have a powerful reason why I should not fix them as
> well, I will go ahead and do so in a few hours.
> > regards
> > Edscott
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xfce4-dev mailing list
> > Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> > http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
Olivier Fourdan - fourdan at xfce.org
Interoperability is the keyword, uniformity is a dead end.
More information about the Xfce4-dev