[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Fix Cygwin path handling

From: Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Cygwin path handling
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:58:59 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20091109)

Christian Franke wrote:
> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>> Christian Franke wrote:
>>> The Cywin path handling is broken since
>>> make_system_path_relative_to_its_root() functionality was moved from
>>> the lib script to misc.c.
>>> This patch should fix this. It reuses the Cygwin specific code from
>>> getroot.c:grub_get_prefix() which apparently is a different
>>> implementation of the same function.
>>> I would suggest to remove grub_get_prefix(), it is now only used in
>>> grub-emu.c and sparc64/ieee1275/grub-setup.c. Not included in the
>>> patch, should be done in a separate commit.
>>> 2010-04-14  Christian Franke<address@hidden>
>>>      * util/
>>> (make_system_path_relative_to_its_root):
>>>      Remove broken Cygwin path conversion.
>>>      * util/misc.c: [__CYGWIN__] Add include and define.
>>>      [__CYGWIN__] (get_win32_path): Copy function from getroot.c,
>>> modify
>>>      for Cygwin 1.7.
>> Please avoid duplicating code. Rather than that rename get_win32_path to
>> grub_get_win32_path and remove static attribute
> Normally I would have done that but duplication was intentional in
> this case:
> The getroot.c:get_win32_path() can later be removed together with
> grub_get_prefix(), see my suggestion above. The patch takes this into
> account and adds new private misc.c:get_win32_path() and so avoids
> unnecessary temporary changes to misc.h and getroot.c.
> The actual code duplication happened when
> misc.c:make_system_path_relative_to_its_root() was added instead of
> moving and reusing getroot.c:grub_get_prefix() :-)
Ok. Can you supply the dedup patch? (perhaps it should come before the fix).
> BTW: My last commits to grub codebase were before the move to bzr.
> As far as I understand "Bazaar workflow for GRUB"
> (
> such changes should be 'bzr push'ed to e.g. '.../branches/feature-foo'
> (e.g. '.../branches/cygwin-path' in this case) after review has finished.
Creating new branches doesn't need any approval at all. If the changes
are approved for trunk they are applied or merged into trunk.
experimental branch is a merge of sufficiently functional branches but
which need more testing for testers convenience. Merging into it follows
similar rules as comitting to trunk.
> Is this workflow still valid or is there a more current document?

Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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