From dev-return-9145-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Thu Feb 06 04:56:24 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 16394 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2003 04:56:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 16383 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2003 04:56:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:57:11 -0500 From: Craig Rodrigues To: dev@apr.apache.org Cc: APR developers Subject: Re: [STATUS] (apr) Wed Feb 5 23:45:28 EST 2003 Message-ID: <20030206045711.GA65593@attbi.com> References: <200302060445.h164jS410221@Boron.MeepZor.Com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302060445.h164jS410221@Boron.MeepZor.Com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:45:28PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > apr.hnw (READDIR_IS_THREAD_SAFE, ENUM_BITFIELD, > _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS (?)) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why is this still in this notice? I mentioned on this list that it is wrong for an application to declare this constant, since this is a manifest POSIX constant that is defined by including . See: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/unistd.h.html In a follow-up post, Brad Nicholes at Novell mentioned that it is all OK to unconditionally define this constant on Novell. If someone who works at Novell says it is OK to do this on Novell, then why is this still an issue?