Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/38327; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>
To: christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost,  gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,  
netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable 
[sg]etprogname?
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:07:20 +0200

 > On Mar 29,  1:40pm, cheusov%tut.by@localhost (Aleksey Cheusov) wrote:
 > -- Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg
 
 > |  Is there anybody who call uuencode as foobar? :)
 > |  Seriously, if an independance of executable name is really your goal,
 > |  close this PR.
 
 > This suggestion is very similar to a suggestion from someone else a
 > decade ago to remove err() and change it to fprintf(stderr + exit(
 > for portability.  Get on with the program. If your OS of choice does
 > not have setprogname() make them add it instead of making our own
 > code "more portable".
 
 I had nothing agaist err() or getprogname() in NetBSD's libc.  I just
 didn't see any reason to use getprogname() and setprogname() in
 exactly two .c files: uuencode.c and uudecode.c. I've already
 answered: if an independance of executable name is your goal, feel
 free to close this PR. If somebody call 'uuencode' a 'foobar'...
 
 
 P.S.
 Do you use setprogname() and getprogname() in SUID executables too? ;)
 
 -- 
 Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.