Re: printf POSIX compliance

Re: printf POSIX compliance

[Pedro Alves]

(Escuse me for breaking the threading, but I can't find the message's
ids from the mailing list archive.)

> Apr 19 17:43:04 <brobecke>      wow, that gnulib thing is a lot more
> effort than I thought. Gotta send big thanks to palves for doing it.
> Apr 19 17:44:17 <tromey>        one reason we should maybe update gnulib
> more frequently is that if we wait too long, it is harder to do
> Apr 19 17:44:36 <palves>        I had no idea when I started either :-P
>
> [... 5 hours later ...]
>
> Apr 19 22:45:35 <palves>        yay, gnulib patch in, I can finally
> start my week's plan :-D

Wow, way to pull things out of context to spread some silly FUD.  First, you have
no idea what I had been up to those 5 hours, let alone if I was parked in
front of the computer the whole time...  Then, the "patch" was really a
multitude of patches, involving fixes to issues in GDB and GDBserver (GDBserver was
not using gnulib before, and that was that prompted the gnulib update), with the
most time consuming bit being that the way that GDB imports gnulib was changed
dramatically, because we now have _two_ programs in the same tree that share
the _same_ gnulib import in a way no other program does, afaik.

  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00426.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00556.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00558.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00608.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00609.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00618.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00620.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00622.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00627.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00631.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00637.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00646.html
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00692.html

As Reuben says, just updating gnulib is a trivial case of git
pull + running gnulib-tool.

-- 
Pedro Alves

Re: Re: printf POSIX compliance

[Luca Barbato]

On 06/11/2012 11:37 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> As Reuben says, just updating gnulib is a trivial case of git
> pull + running gnulib-tool.

Would be cute and nice if people stops putting gnulib in their programs
and gnulib gets a cleaner autotools (same for gcc and friends, guys you
suck at using your own tools) and everybody that needs some of the
gnulib nice features (like the nanosecond strtime) depends on a shared
gnulib easy to replace every time there is some security issue related...

lu - feeling cranky today...

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: Re: printf POSIX compliance

[Rich Felker]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:37:06AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> (Escuse me for breaking the threading, but I can't find the message's
> ids from the mailing list archive.)

No problem. Our mail archive sucks.

> > Apr 19 17:43:04 <brobecke>      wow, that gnulib thing is a lot more
> > effort than I thought. Gotta send big thanks to palves for doing it.
> > Apr 19 17:44:17 <tromey>        one reason we should maybe update gnulib
> > more frequently is that if we wait too long, it is harder to do
> > Apr 19 17:44:36 <palves>        I had no idea when I started either :-P
> >
> > [... 5 hours later ...]
> >
> > Apr 19 22:45:35 <palves>        yay, gnulib patch in, I can finally
> > start my week's plan :-D
> 
> Wow, way to pull things out of context to spread some silly FUD.  First, you have
> no idea what I had been up to those 5 hours, let alone if I was parked in
> front of the computer the whole time...  Then, the "patch" was really a

I agree; pulling chat logs to make a point like this is at best
impolite... Thanks for clarifying.

Rich