Re: RFC round 3: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Mon,29.Jun.09, 22:53:53, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ The set of fields ends on the first empty line. > > > Free-form comments follow and be used for any other information > > ^^ No "can" here. > > I'm not a native speaker, but this doesn't sound very well. > > There's an implicit "can". > > “Free-form comments can follow and [can] be used for” One "can" here. Az. -- +0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ www: http://www.azazel.net/ pgp: http://www.azazel.net/~azazel/az_key.asc +0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The number of etch installations is rocketing...
Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: > > * 2007-04-12 11:29, Joey Hess wrote: > > > I wonder if it would be reasonable to make d-i hit one of two urls > > > depending on whether the user chose to enable popcon, and count > the > > > results. > > > > Isn't this a violation of user's privacy? If the user hitted `No', > this > > really means that he doesn't want to call home. > > As long as we don't use that to collect sensitive information, it > would be > ok IMO. (Of course, a preseed question could avoid it completely too) > > Fedora has done it and while the initial discussion came up with such > concerns, they have done so without creating major troubles or loosing > developers, etc. > > I remember this LWN article on this topic: > http://lwn.net/Articles/203694/ > > I can't find a newer article with the final decision taken and the > rationale but that would be interesting for this discussion. There's this, which refers to an article on linux.com: http://lwn.net/Articles/219628/ J. -- +0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ www: http://www.azazel.net/ pgp: http://www.azazel.net/~azazel/az_key.asc +0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Help] Autoconf problems when trying to build WordNet 3.0 package
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> >OK, I can see now that /usr/lib/tk8.4/tkConfig.sh sets TK_PREFIX
> >in the environment of "configure". But what is meant to
> >propagate this environment variable into the Makefile? I don't
> >see anything intended to do that. Autoconf does not
> >automatically propagate all environment variables from
> >"configure" into Makefiles (nor should it).
> >
> >It looks to me like there's a missing piece in the build system.
>
> Yes, you both seem to come to the same conclusion as I myself - but
> I have no idea how to fix this. There must be some trick to propagate
> these variables, but how? I've got no clue out of reading the
> texinfo docs.
There's an acinclude.m4 file in the 2.1 source which is missing from
your 3.0 source which may be relevant. I've attached it.
Az.
--
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
www: http://www.azazel.net/
pgp: http://www.azazel.net/~azazel/az_key.asc
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
#
# SC_PATH_TCLCONFIG --
#
# Locate the tclConfig.sh file and perform a sanity check on
# the Tcl compile flags
#
# Arguments:
# none
#
# Results:
#
# Adds the following arguments to configure:
# --with-tcl=...
#
# Defines the following vars:
# TCL_BIN_DIR Full path to the directory containing
# the tclConfig.sh file
#
AC_DEFUN(SC_PATH_TCLCONFIG, [
#
# Ok, lets find the tcl configuration
# First, look for one uninstalled.
# the alternative search directory is invoked by --with-tcl
#
if test x"${no_tcl}" = x ; then
# we reset no_tcl in case something fails here
no_tcl=true
AC_ARG_WITH(tcl, [ --with-tcl directory containing tcl
configuration (tclConfig.sh)], with_tclconfig=${withval})
AC_MSG_CHECKING([for Tcl configuration])
AC_CACHE_VAL(ac_cv_c_tclconfig,[
# First check to see if --with-tcl was specified.
if test x"${with_tclconfig}" != x ; then
if test -f "${with_tclconfig}/tclConfig.sh" ; then
ac_cv_c_tclconfig=`(cd ${with_tclconfig}; pwd)`
else
AC_MSG_ERROR([${with_tclconfig} directory doesn't contain
tclConfig.sh])
fi
fi
# then check for a private Tcl installation
if test x"${ac_cv_c_tclconfig}" = x ; then
for i in \
../tcl \
`ls -dr ../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]].[[0-9]]* 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]] 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]]* 2>/dev/null` \
../../tcl \
`ls -dr ../../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]].[[0-9]]* 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ../../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]] 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ../../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]]* 2>/dev/null` \
../../../tcl \
`ls -dr ../../../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]].[[0-9]]*
2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ../../../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]] 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ../../../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]]* 2>/dev/null` ; do
if test -f "$i/unix/tclConfig.sh" ; then
ac_cv_c_tclconfig=`(cd $i/unix; pwd)`
break
fi
done
fi
# check in a few common install locations
if test x"${ac_cv_c_tclconfig}" = x ; then
for i in `ls -d ${libdir} 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/local/lib 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/contrib/lib 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/lib 2>/dev/null` \
; do
if test -f "$i/tclConfig.sh" ; then
ac_cv_c_tclconfig=`(cd $i; pwd)`
break
fi
done
fi
# check in a few other private locations
if test x"${ac_cv_c_tclconfig}" = x ; then
for i in \
${srcdir}/../tcl \
`ls -dr ${srcdir}/../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]].[[0-9]]*
2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ${srcdir}/../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]] 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -dr ${srcdir}/../tcl[[8-9]].[[0-9]]* 2>/dev/null` ;
do
if test -f "$i/unix/tclConfig.sh"
Re: Having fun with the following C code (UB)
On 2014-04-10 12:42:03 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:29:50PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > * Wouter Verhelst , 2014-04-10, 12:03: > > > I've had to figure out the size of off_t in nbd-server, and have > > > been doing it without relying on overflow, for years now. It took > > > quite a few iterations to get it right, but the current definition > > > has looked like this since 2006: > > > > > > #define OFFT_MAX ~((off_t)1<<(sizeof(off_t)*8-1)) > > > > > > i.e., left-shift 1 by enough bits so that the most significant bit > > > is set, > > > > I believe that this code triggers undefined behavior. My C99 draft > > reads: > > > > The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated > > bits are filled with zeros. […] If E1 has a signed type and > > nonnegative value, and E1 × 2^(E2) is representable in the result > > type, then that is the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is > > undefined. > > Yes; the standard does this to allow for machine architectures which > do not use two's complement to store negative values. I did mention > that assumption in my previous mail. > > If the architecture uses two's complement, however, then the code is > correct. Chapter and verse? C99, sec. 6.5.7, para. 4, quoted above, makes no such distinction. The operation is simply defined in terms of multi- plication by powers of two. If off_t is a signed type, 1 * 2 ^ (sizeof (off_t) * CHAR_BIT - 1) cannot be represented in off_t, and the behaviour is undefined. Az. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
