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

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

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

From: christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
To: Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>
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 11:33:32 -0400

 On Mar 29,  5:07pm, cheusov%tut.by@localhost (Aleksey Cheusov) wrote:
 -- Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg
 
 | 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'...
 
 Yes, we like all programs to not hard-code their program name, so that
 they behave consistently.
 
 christos