[Attn. Maintainer] glib2.0
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:43:34 +0300
- From: LRN <lrn1986@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [Attn. Maintainer] glib2.0
On 03.04.2019 15:16, LRN wrote: > 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 cygwinports commit and a related gnulib 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__ > to > #if defined(__CYGWIN) && (!defined (CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR) || > CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR < somevalue) > > > 2) This 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. > > > : > https://github.com/cygwinports/glib2.0/commit/b61abed9554ab813ed358ea5bad648987573772e#diff-2d64c930085856723abe9a40105389abR256 > > : > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/lib/localcharset.c?id=9f5ab735f030faf651961d55ce3b849dd56dcff3 > > : > https://github.com/cygwinports/glib2.0/commit/40ca93c8ae81e7a05ec098246b43ce74e157ebd6#diff-c86c0d1edc7cdc043b8b01ee6e526817 > Added the "[Attn. Maintainer] glib2.0" tag to the subject, as suggested in a different thread.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Prev by Date: Re: Are my emails being filtered out?
- Next by Date: Libssl 1.0 corrupted after upgrading from 2.10 to 3.x latest
- Previous by thread: Re: cygwin port of glib
- Next by thread: util-linux package missing usr/bin/script between 2.25 and 2.32