From: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
To: bug-gnulib@gnu.org, Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: gnulib-tool.py: Follow gnulib-tool changes, part 28.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 02:25:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4683259.eGJsNajkDb@nimes> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4004442-2643-4a79-9933-9e149d4b3b7c@gmail.com>
Collin Funk wrote:
> So the --avoid modules are emitted in the order they are passed to
> gnulib-tool, but the actual modules will be alphabetically sorted.
> Therefore, I think the correct code would be:
>
> if len(avoids) > 0:
> actioncmd += ''.join([f" \\\n# --avoid={x}" for x in avoids])
> if len(modules) > 0:
> actioncmd += ''.join([f" \\\n# {x}" for x in sorted(modules)])
OK. For the --avoid options, things are clear now.
Regarding the modules to include:
> Here is the diff with the two sorted instructions removed.
So, it looks like the original gnulib-tool does some sorting of the
module names that gnulib-tool.py does not do yet, in some earlier
processing steps. Since this can affect other parts of the output,
it would be good to have the sorting at the same processing stage.
None of the 'sort' invocations in gnulib-tool are covered by an
entry in the gnulib-tool.py.TODO file. Therefore the most promising
approach to finding the cause of the difference is to
- go through all 'sort' invocations in gnulib-tool,
- find the corresponding place in pygnulib/ and see whether
sorting happens there as well or has been forgotten.
Bruno
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-25 1:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-23 5:23 [PATCH] gnulib-tool.py: Follow gnulib-tool changes, part 27 Collin Funk
2024-02-23 13:08 ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-23 22:20 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-23 23:51 ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-24 2:36 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-24 5:49 ` gnulib-tool.py: Follow gnulib-tool changes, part 28 Collin Funk
2024-02-24 23:25 ` gnulib-tool.py: Follow gnulib-tool changes, part 27 Bruno Haible
2024-02-25 0:03 ` Dima Pasechnik
2024-02-25 11:57 ` Python != None Bruno Haible
2024-02-25 19:29 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-25 20:07 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-26 20:38 ` pycodestyle configuration Bruno Haible
2024-02-26 21:31 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-26 22:54 ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-27 0:51 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-27 2:38 ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-27 4:22 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-25 20:55 ` Python != None Dima Pasechnik
2024-02-25 12:02 ` Python 'strings' Bruno Haible
2024-02-25 19:05 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-24 23:42 ` gnulib-tool.py: Follow gnulib-tool changes, part 28 Bruno Haible
2024-02-25 0:47 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-25 1:18 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-25 1:25 ` Bruno Haible [this message]
2024-02-25 3:32 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-26 20:51 ` Bruno Haible
2024-02-28 11:51 ` Collin Funk
2024-02-28 12:14 ` Bruno Haible
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
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=4683259.eGJsNajkDb@nimes \
--to=bruno@clisp.org \
--cc=bug-gnulib@gnu.org \
--cc=collin.funk1@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).