Hello Jim,
* Jim Meyering wrote on Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:54:33PM CET:
>
> Gnulib needs more *automatic* consistency checks,
> especially now that coreutils "make syntax-check" rule
> and commit hook are no longer checking gnulib bits.
Quoting README:
| High Quality
|
|
| We will
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gnulib needs more *automatic* consistency checks,
> especially now that coreutils "make syntax-check" rule
> and commit hook are no longer checking gnulib bits.
Hear, hear. I can volunteer to set up a "daily build" for a all
modules, with logging going
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another consistency change: canonicalize_filename_mode should be
> renamed to canonicalize_file_name_mode as per the GNU coding standards.
> Any objections? (Jim? :-)
That's fine by me.
Gnulib needs more *automatic* consistency checks,
especially now tha
Paul Eggert wrote:
Here is a slightly different proposal to add that module; it assumes
the 'canonicalize' changes I just installed. What do you think?
Looks good to me. I like your idea of sharing canonicalize.h between
the two implementations. FWIW, using your implementation
./gnulib-t
Here is a slightly different proposal to add that module; it assumes
the 'canonicalize' changes I just installed. What do you think?
I guess the basic idea here is that we move this module from gettext
to gnulib, so I haven't worried about config/srclist.txt.
2006-11-03 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PRO
"Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If gnulib is to have an LGPL canoncicalize, it will necessarily be
> *different* code.
OK, thanks for the analysis. I'll start the ball rolling by
installing this change, which affects only the existing canonicalize
module. A later email will addre
[Sorry for the previous mail; I accidentally sent a reply before I was
finished writing it]
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:11:46 -0800, "Paul Eggert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Precedent: the fts and fts-lgpl modules each provide functionality
> > similar
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:11:46 -0800, "Paul Eggert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Precedent: the fts and fts-lgpl modules each provide functionality
> > similar to the other, under different licenses -- where the module
> > under the lesser license pro
Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Precedent: the fts and fts-lgpl modules each provide functionality
> similar to the other, under different licenses -- where the module
> under the lesser license provides lesser, but still useful,
> functionality. That is the case here, as well: the ca
