On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> But in all honestly it is also slightly less portable
>
> Is it a real problem? Neil's testing would help. :)
I'll admit I'm guessing, but after many years of writing portable C code on
*nix systems I've learned that there's always someone somewhere that can show
how naive portability assumptions break.
>> I think we need to have a config.h file for them.
>
> I have less desire for maximally portable examples. To me, their purpose is
> to show how to use the library, so the source code is much more important
> than running the actual programs.
Then I also take it that you vote for us moving out the building of the
examples from the main 'make' action?
Ordinary mortals will take the spewing of build errors on the terminal as a
signal that the build went wrong, even if the lib itself built fine and it was
"only" the examples that failed to build.
I think we should still strive ay keeping the examples building, as much as
possible. Even if that means using a config.h file.
-- / daniel.haxx.se _______________________________________________ libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-develReceived on 2010-02-01