Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-ID: <3DA9506D.FA8E5FD5@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:52:29 +0100 From: Richard Dawe X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: de,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: File UItils at Clio 2.04 Query References: <10210120346 DOT AA05699 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Hello. Charles Sandmann wrote: [snip] > I don't know of anything broken in the Fileutils 4.0 - so I would > just distribute 4.0 until we swap over (option a). When I finished porting 4.0, Jim Meyering suggested that I should port 4.1 pretty quickly, because of nasty bugs in 4.0. Looking at /dev/env/DJDIR/gnu/filutil4.1/NEWS, there are some nasty bugs that could lead to data loss. > It seems there are problems with Fileutils 4.1 on other platforms too, > based on another message (based on current 2.03 libc). If we are > "supporting" 4.1, that would indicate that someone is spending time to find > and fix bugs there. I started looking at the code on Friday. I haven't got very far, but I hope to nail the problem before I go on holiday for a month and half on Saturday. [snip] > Since Fileutils 4.1 is a dead end, replaced by CoreUtils, any > effort is interesting but somewhat a throwaway. If it's a Fileutils > 4.1 assumption that is too unixy, we would just ifdef it out > (more like 4.0). If it turfs up a bug in the libc, that might > be interesting (but unlikely). If it's a bug in 4.1, we replace > it anyway with coreutils. Unless someone is really interested, > it seems we roll back to 4.0 and spend time on coreutils port? Post-fileutils 4.1 (actually fileutils 4.1.9), the 'rm' implementation (remove.c) was completely rewritten. Bugs are still being fixed in it. There's no official stable release of coreutils yet. That makes me nervous about relying on a coreutils port, when we have a stable fileutils port. I will be working of a coreutils port, when the rm bug is fixed/worked round in fileutils 4.1. > > The above sounds as if you will > > end up with a package that cannot be recreated from the source. > > That will lead to future confusion. > > It certainly sounds that way, and against the spirit of GPL. Why is it against the spirit of the GPL? As long as sources are available for the hybrid binary distribution, I don't think it violates the GPL. No source changes would be needed. Bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]