Marc Recht <marc@informatik.uni-bremen.de> writes: > > I don't like this approach. For -CURRENT, I would outright reject any > > such patch; there should be a way to enable extensions even if > A somewhat simpler solution/work-around would be to define __BSD_VISIBLE > (patch attached). But the cleanest way would be to not define > _XOPEN_SOURCE, XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED and _POSIX_C_SOURCE on FreeBSD 5. Notice that issues are different on the various BSDs. I think of Python on Unix as "POSIX+Extensions". On all POSIX systems, _XOPEN_SOURCE should be defined. If additional defines are needed to activate extensions, we should define them. If FreeBSD has no mechanisms to request extensions other than defining __BSD_VISIBLE, we should define it. Before doing so, I'd like to know what Python features would need that. Please don't post patches to python-dev. > > OTOH, why absence of chroot a problem? Should not HAVE_CHROOT be > > undefined if chroot is hidden? > It isn't. Ok, then this needs to be investigated. This is a clear bug. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4