Re: Linux ia64.h

["David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:33:41PM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote:
> >2. Why is this new header allowed to include other config headers
> >   directly??  I was prevented from committing FreeBSD headers that did
> >   this.  Why was I being held up to a different standard than any one
> >   else is?
> 
> You aren't being held to a different standard.  We have are old ports that
> haven't been cleaned up yet, and occasionally some spotty enforcement of
> the rules.  There is also the question here of what "new" means.  The
> ia64/linux.h file is over 15 months old in the FSF tree.  If you consider
> the NDA Trillian tree, then the file is over 2 years old.  When I created the
> file over 2 years ago, I followed then existing common conventions, and the
> file has not yet been updated to match all current conventions.

According to email to me from Jeff Law, the convention on Thu, 27 May
1999 at 07:58:39(-0700) was to put includes in tm.h.  That's virtually 24
months ago.  So it still seems like it depends on who you are.

> The rule is a good one, and just because there are some ports that don't
> conform to it does not mean that we should throw it away.

BTW it would be nice if this rule were spelled out somewhere.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)