Re: [PATCH] Add wc-funcs warnings to configure.

"Kevin J. McCarthy" <[email protected]> Tue, 17 Feb 2026 07:04:35 +0800

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.mutt.devel
Message-ID	<aZOig8tyHqQPcSrV@qinghai>

On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 08:07:38PM +0100, Rene Kita wrote:
>I think somewhere in the discussion leading to this patch was a rational
>why wcwidth is special here, I already can't remember. Maybe it would be
>worth it to add that rational to the commit message.

That was from Steffen Nurpmeso in 
<20260212194458.BQUwHGoc@steffen%sdaoden.eu>, and in the sub-thread 
under <[email protected]>, Daniel Tameling and Steffen 
noted the backup implementation we currently have might continue to be a 
suitable replacement for systems missing it.

I'll update the commit to note the discussion on tentative 2.5.0 plans 
and give pointers to that discussion.

>AFAIU all the wc-funcs are now part of ISO C or POSIX and systems not
>supporting it are legacy. Deprecating is fine, maybe don't put 2.5.0 as
>a hard deadline (just in case). If someone somewhere is really building
>a modern mutt on such a legacy system they can come to the ML and
>complain.

Agreed.  That's why we're doing the two-step dance of printing a 
warning, and giving a whole release cycle to give people to complain.

I'm hoping we may be past that point.  There are some people who still 
compile recent mutt on older systems, but maybe "older" is capable of 
the wc-funcs by now...

-- 
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)