Remove a bit-rotted inline prototype for a libc function, unbreaking

build on netbsd-8.

net/netatalk22/distinfo

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-$NetBSD: distinfo,v 1.3 2017/04/13 14:35:53 hauke Exp $
+$NetBSD: distinfo,v 1.4 2017/07/08 19:38:18 hauke Exp $
 
 SHA1 (netatalk-2.2.5.tar.bz2) = 4367421213d68b8396cf35743e347e9c01bdf3b0
 RMD160 (netatalk-2.2.5.tar.bz2) = ff0165806973b19db906406fd4b37dd49d505a27
@@ -24,4 +24,5 @@ SHA1 (patch-etc_papd_print_cups.c) = 0bfa8d75691e11e3bbbc0bb59cd342fb5500b6ac
 SHA1 (patch-etc_uams_uams_gss.c) = b9ff59c368e01d3f269e95f5eaeb239dc17e701c
 SHA1 (patch-include_atalk_acl.h) = 62d67eaf089126b2c0bff0871b23f7a6707e119c
 SHA1 (patch-include_atalk_ldapconfig.h) = d0bb4a1bf520b18228de6ab87b646f4496852fce
+SHA1 (patch-libatalk_bstring_bstrlib.c) = f43818328237b908166f956de464f532d578d2c4
 SHA1 (patch-macros_quota-check.m4) = b1484f83a2a6ba5bd50623ab525d5366bb71abaa

net/netatalk22/patches/patch-libatalk_bstring_bstrlib.c

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+$NetBSD: patch-libatalk_bstring_bstrlib.c,v 1.1 2017/07/08 19:38:18 hauke Exp $
+
+When a compiler complains about a missing prototype for a libc
+function, just inserting one for what you think the interface might be
+is probably not a good idea.
+
+--- libatalk/bstring/bstrlib.c.orig	2013-03-05 06:24:48.000000000 +0000
++++ libatalk/bstring/bstrlib.c
+@@ -2736,13 +2736,6 @@ struct genBstrList g;
+ #define exvsnprintf(r,b,n,f,a) {vsprintf (b,f,a); r = -1;}
+ #define START_VSNBUFF (256)
+ #else
+-
+-#ifdef __GNUC__
+-/* Something is making gcc complain about this prototype not being here, so 
+-   I've just gone ahead and put it in. */
+-extern int vsnprintf (char *buf, size_t count, const char *format, va_list arg);
+-#endif
+-
+ #define exvsnprintf(r,b,n,f,a) {r = vsnprintf (b,n,f,a);}
+ #endif
+ #endif