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

[Martin Buchholz]

Although I know very little about fts itself, I have all the
pre-requisites to be able to debug the problem in fts on Solaris,
except for time.  I already have a number of free-software
mini-projects that are on the back-burner for lack of time to hack on
them.

Martin

>>>>> "J" == James Youngman <address@hidden> writes:

J> 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.

J> 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.

J> I should point out that Martin has been finding that the fts-based
J> find exhibits different behaviour to the non-fts find on file systems
J> with a Sun Solaris automounter.  We don't yet have details of what, in
J> particular, is different about what the fts based version is doing.
J> However, he noted that --disable-leaf-optimisation doesn't have any
J> effect on the fts-based find executable.    Details (and a patch which
J> appears actually to not solve the problem, somewhat to my surprise) at
J> http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?22301.

J> Thanks,
J> James.