[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: critique of gnulib - disabling workarounds

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: critique of gnulib - disabling workarounds
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 03:24:36 +0200
User-agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-159-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; )

Jonas Termansen wrote:
> To recap, my primary requests are:
> 1) Categorizing gnulib into three parts (replacement functions for when
> they don't exist, workarounds for bugs, and utility functions).
> 2) Making it possible to disable the gnulib bug replacements with a
> configure command line option.
> 3) Defaulting to assume the best when cross-compiling to unknown systems.

Now that 3) is implemented, I don't see the utility of 2). If someone is
NOT cross-compiling, and a configure test has determined that a certain
system function is buggy or missing, what would be the point of disabling
the workaround? Even for your situation as an OS developer, Gnulib doesn't
hide the issues: It mentions the test results in the configure output,
and you even a sample program to reproduce each problem (embedded in the

Regarding 1): This categorization exists in the documentation [1][2].
Should we go as far as splitting gnulib into 3 git repositories? I think
it would complicate things too much, because
  - most packages borrow modules from all three kinds,
  - there are dependencies not only from the utility modules to the
    POSIX emulation modules, but also the other way around (e.g. to
    the modules assure, c-ctype, filenamecat, flexmember, gettext-h,
    integer-length, localcharset, localename, minmax, scratch-buffer,


[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/index.html
[2] https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/MODULES.html

reply via email to

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