> This patch is bogus.  If you're going to include things from sys/,
> it's *your* problem to insure that any files they depend on are
> included.  Adding includes like this is a slippery path to Hell.

Personally, I agree with the original poster.  I've taken to
maintaining a shadow tree of include files, which my cc wrapper
automatically calls on with -I, where each file _does_ include
everything it requires.  The only reason I haven't sent in a pile of
similar PRs is (a) lack of time to take my shadow tree and reformat it
into PRs and (b) lack of incentive - once a file is set up in the
shadow tree, I forget it ever had the bug (for that's what I consider
the omissions to be).

I've had no trouble with this, in years of doing it on multiple OS
versions.  Why do you say it's a "slippery path to Hell"?  What am I
setting myself up for?

					der Mouse

			    mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu