bug-gnulib
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module


From: Pino Toscano
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 15:40:47 +0200
User-agent: KMail/5.2.3 (Linux/4.6.6-300.fc24.x86_64; KDE/5.25.0; x86_64; ; )

On Monday, 5 September 2016 21:47:31 CEST Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Pino Toscano <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 20:47:15 CEST Jim Meyering wrote:
> > ...
> >> Another thing: should some deprecation warning/note be added regarding
> >> the progname module?
> >
> > I like the idea of adding a deprecation warning.
> > If it could be completely replaced, I'd suggest to add the "Status:
> > deprecated" attribute to its modules file, but we don't have a
> > replacement for set_program_name, so there may still be legitimate
> > uses. If a future change were to move set_program_name into its own
> > new module, *then*, we could officially deprecate the progname module.

Makes sense to me, what about the attached patch?

> >> Is NEWS the proper place for them? Attached there
> >> is a small documentation addendum.
> >
> > Good idea.
> > While this is not officially an incompatible change, converting is
> > invasive enough that this NEWS blurb belongs in that section.
> > I've split a long sentence and merged that into your first commit.
> > And pushed.

Thanks!

> >>> I'm prepared to push the attached, but will wait for your ack.
> >
> > If you're interested, one more thing that may help avoid trouble would
> > be to add a syntax-check rule to prohibit new uses of this module,
> > including new inclusion of progname.h, new declarations of
> > program_name or anything else you can think of that should no longer
> > be done here in gnulib.

I needed to check that more in detail, although it's low priority IMHO.

> FYI, while adapting grep to use this module, I encountered a single
> new error/warning. The attached patch fixes that:

Thanks for the fixup.  Did you find any other issue there due to the
progname -> getprogname switch?

Thanks,
--
Pino Toscano

Attachment: 0001-progname-mark-as-obsolete.patch
Description: Text Data

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


reply via email to

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