bug-gnulib@gnu.org mirror (unofficial)
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
To: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnulib-tool.py: Fix function call on incorrect object.
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:36:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4603648.7YbXXFKy9f@nimes> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875xyk2tco.fsf@gmail.com>

Collin Funk wrote:
> > 65% of the .py code has been verified to be in sync with the bash code;
> > 35% still to go. And then, the changes from the gnulib-tool.py.TODO list
> I see. I had it open and compared some of it to the shell script and it
> wasn't too hard to follow. Maybe I could help hack away at some of in my
> free time.

If you want to do help with gnulib-tool.py, I would suggest not to continue
directly with the comparison / review (because it's hard to keep track of
what has been reviewed / tested and what has not), but rather work across
the gnulib-tool.py.TODO file, from the bottom to the top.

> I assume the best way to test it would be to create a small test
> directory with a few modules?

The best way to test it is to take a specific source package that uses a
number of modules (I used wget2, but you can use coreutils or any other
package), run gnulib-tool and gnulib-tool.py with identical command-line
options, and compare/verify the results on either side.

> I think all of the header file
> replacements would break the build so whichever ones avoid using those.

You don't need to go to the './configure' and 'make' stages at this point.
Just ensuring that the outputs of gnulib-tool and gnulib-tool.py are the
same will sufficiently guide you.


  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-19 21:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-19  1:24 [PATCH] gnulib-tool.py: Fix function call on incorrect object Collin Funk
2024-02-19  2:17 ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-19  8:59   ` Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
2024-02-19 10:38     ` gnulib-tool caching Bruno Haible
2024-02-19 12:55       ` Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
2024-02-19 21:50         ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-19 22:24           ` Sam James
2024-02-19 23:11             ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-19 23:17               ` Sam James
2024-02-19 18:37   ` [PATCH] gnulib-tool.py: Fix function call on incorrect object Collin Funk
2024-02-19 21:36     ` Bruno Haible [this message]
2024-02-19 22:42       ` Collin Funk

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4603648.7YbXXFKy9f@nimes \
    --to=bruno@clisp.org \
    --cc=bug-gnulib@gnu.org \
    --cc=collin.funk1@gmail.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).