On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:53:06PM +1100, Luke Mewburn wrote:

 > because we're very inconsistent in the tree about whether we use
 > __progname or the explicit name, with the explicit name seeming to
 > have more use.

Well, personally, I'd rather see more consistent use of __progname.  If
we're going to use __progname in usage(), and not in syslogs, well, that
seems kind of silly.

 > also, there has been various discussions about using a more portable
 > solution that __progname (since code that uses it isn't that portable
 > outside of NetBSD and its __progname support in lib/csu (?))

But this isn't the right way to do it.  If we have a getprogname() and
setprogname(), then it's easy to find __progname and replace it with
getprogname() (a NetBSD compat shim could provide getprogname()).

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>