[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Correct typo in comment in fts.c

From: James Youngman
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct typo in comment in fts.c
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:45:44 +0000

On Feb 20, 2008 12:12 PM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:

> This reminds me of the long-planned fork, e.g., s/fts_*/gfts_*/,
> (all public symbols) in which I create new files named gfts.[ch].  Then,
> someday, I can propose adding it to glibc.  Remember, proposing the
> addition with new names is the only way to add the improved functions
> to glibc, due to the API changes that make the gnulib version more robust.

I'm looking forward to collaborating on that.

> A couple months ago I finally did most of the work, and have adapted
> coreutils to use the new names (still all private for the moment).
> Just need to find time to write ChangeLog entries, etc. and decide how
> to handle maintenance of the resulting duplication.  I'm leaning toward
> deriving gfts.c mechanically, at least initially, but that's messy.
> There are many exceptions, and evaluating that takes time, too.

I should point out that Martin has been finding that the fts-based
find exhibits different behaviour to the non-fts find on file systems
with a Sun Solaris automounter.  We don't yet have details of what, in
particular, is different about what the fts based version is doing.
However, he noted that --disable-leaf-optimisation doesn't have any
effect on the fts-based find executable.    Details (and a patch which
appears actually to not solve the problem, somewhat to my surprise) at


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]