Web lists-archives.com

Re: cygwin port of glib

On 05.03.2019 17:23, LRN wrote:
> On 05.03.2019 17:07, E. Madison Bray wrote:
>> If they're clean, worthwhile patches then I absolutely think you
>> should get them integrated upstream if at all possible--that's almost
>> always preferable.
> Okay, i'll see what i can do.

Made some progress, but i would benefit from some input on a few things.

1) This[0] cygwinports commit and a related gnulib[1] commit. Which version of
cygwin (CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR) corresponds to 1.7 (is the 1.7 number even
correct?). As a less-intrusive fix, i can switch
#ifdef __CYGWIN__
#if defined(__CYGWIN) && (!defined (CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR) ||

2) This[2] cygwinports commit. I don't quite get what the author means. Does he
mean that returning a path that looks like "//etc" from parsing a URI
"file:////etc" is correct? Or the opposite, that it should return "/etc" ? The
commit seems to be saying one thing, while the code does something else.




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature