Re: Portability issue with `putenv'

[Paul Eggert]

James Youngman <address@hidden> writes:

> It's an open question as to whether Autoconf should replace an
> OS-specific putenv() function just because it doesn't fully comply
> with POSIX.

Nowadays these sorts of questions are typically resolved in places
like gnulib rather than in Autoconf proper.  For its approach to
putenv please see:

http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/*checkout*/gnulib/gnulib/MODULES.html?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/html#module=putenv

Sam Lauber writes:

> I've noticed a lot of free software is impolite to DOS systems.

I wouldn't call it "impolite" -- it's just a lack of resources.
Here's a relevant quote from the GNU coding standards
<http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html>:

  As for systems that are not like Unix, such as MSDOS, Windows, the
  Macintosh, VMS, and MVS, supporting them is often a lot of
  work. When that is the case, it is better to spend your time adding
  features that will be useful on GNU and GNU/Linux, rather than on
  supporting other incompatible systems.