Re: Accepted grep 2.5.1.ds2-1 (source i386 sparc)
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:12:07AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:04:24PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
found 181378 2.5.1.ds2-1
thanks
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:47:06 -0700]:
* Removed 64-egf-speedup.patch, 65-dfa-optional.patch,
66-match_icase.patch and 67-w.patch from debian/patches,
closes: #329876.
Those patches fixed a bug (and two merged) that had been opened for 2
and a half years. I think it'd be useful if you tried to contact the
authors of the patches, and try to fix them instead of removing them?
Sure, the grep maintainers decided to pull out them and will go
trough the patches again.
I wondered if I introduced this issue while porting the Fedora patches to
Debian, so I tried Fedora's grep...which has the same issue.
You can reproduce it with this simple command:
echo foobar | grep -Fw
This was introduced by the patch I named '64-egf-speedup.patch'
You can fix it by changing the 'while (1)' by 'while (len)' (or by
embedding this while loop in a 'if (len){...}', I don't know if there is a
real difference, and what is the best way).
Tim Waugh, who wrote the original patches, may have a better understanding
of the grep's code.
The testsuite still pass with this patch.
BTW, I don't know if you received a mail I sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
which indicated that the additional patches (which I submitted because
they helped passing the testsuite) were fixing: #209194 #218873 #226397
#238167
If you plan to re-introduce these patches, please tell me. While checking
for this issue (#329876), I've seen that there was one issue fixed in a
Fedora update, related to this patch:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161700
I can update 64-egf-speedup.patch if you want.
Kind Regards,
--
Nekral
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Accepted grep 2.5.1.ds2-1 (source i386 sparc)
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:53:41PM +0200, Nicolas François wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:12:07AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:04:24PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:47:06 -0700]:
* Removed 64-egf-speedup.patch, 65-dfa-optional.patch,
66-match_icase.patch and 67-w.patch from debian/patches,
closes: #329876.
Those patches fixed a bug (and two merged) that had been opened for 2
and a half years. I think it'd be useful if you tried to contact the
authors of the patches, and try to fix them instead of removing them?
Sure, the grep maintainers decided to pull them out and will go
trough the patches again.
I wondered if I introduced this issue while porting the Fedora patches to
Debian, so I tried Fedora's grep...which has the same issue.
You can reproduce it with this simple command:
echo foobar | grep -Fw
This was introduced by the patch I named '64-egf-speedup.patch'
You can fix it by changing the 'while (1)' by 'while (len)' (or by
embedding this while loop in a 'if (len){...}', I don't know if there is a
real difference, and what is the best way).
Tim Waugh, who wrote the original patches, may have a better understanding
of the grep's code.
The testsuite still pass with this patch.
BTW, I don't know if you received a mail I sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
which indicated that the additional patches (which I submitted because
they helped passing the testsuite) were fixing: #209194 #218873 #226397
#238167
I received it, thanks. I'll close the bugs.
If you plan to re-introduce these patches, please tell me. While checking
for this issue (#329876), I've seen that there was one issue fixed in a
Fedora update, related to this patch:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161700
I can update 64-egf-speedup.patch if you want.
Yes, please. I would like to reapply 64-egf-speedup.patch
(and 6[567]-*.patch) and an updated version will be very much
appreciated.
Kind Regards,
--
Nekral
Regards,
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
--
.''`. Debian GNU/Linux
: :' : Free Operating System
`. `' http://debian.org/
`- http://v7w.com/anibal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Accepted grep 2.5.1.ds2-1 (source i386 sparc)
found 181378 2.5.1.ds2-1 thanks * Anibal Monsalve Salazar [Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:47:06 -0700]: * Removed 64-egf-speedup.patch, 65-dfa-optional.patch, 66-match_icase.patch and 67-w.patch from debian/patches, closes: #329876. Those patches fixed a bug (and two merged) that had been opened for 2 and a half years. I think it'd be useful if you tried to contact the authors of the patches, and try to fix them instead of removing them? * Removed grep.texi from upstream tarball, 50-rgrep-info.patch and 51-dircategory-info.patch from debian/patches, the GNU Free Documentation License from debian/copyright and debian/fdl.txt, closes: #281647. Still, grep.1 remains, which (a) contains verbatim paragraphs from grep.texi yet (b) comes in the upstream tarball with a license notice. Does this mean that grep.1 is?: - under the GFDL, so should be removed - under the GPL (the general license of the tarball), despite sharing contents with grep.texi - undistributable, because it has no license attached Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, yet he makes gods by the dozens. -- Michel de Montaigne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Accepted grep 2.5.1.ds2-1 (source i386 sparc)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:04:24PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: found 181378 2.5.1.ds2-1 thanks * Anibal Monsalve Salazar [Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:47:06 -0700]: * Removed 64-egf-speedup.patch, 65-dfa-optional.patch, 66-match_icase.patch and 67-w.patch from debian/patches, closes: #329876. Those patches fixed a bug (and two merged) that had been opened for 2 and a half years. I think it'd be useful if you tried to contact the authors of the patches, and try to fix them instead of removing them? Sure, the grep maintainers decided to pull out them and will go trough the patches again. I have bcc-ed #181378. * Removed grep.texi from upstream tarball, 50-rgrep-info.patch and 51-dircategory-info.patch from debian/patches, the GNU Free Documentation License from debian/copyright and debian/fdl.txt, closes: #281647. Still, grep.1 remains, which (a) contains verbatim paragraphs from grep.texi yet (b) comes in the upstream tarball with a license notice. Does this mean that grep.1 is?: - under the GFDL, so should be removed grep.texi is the only documentation file under the GFDL whereas grep.1 is not. - under the GPL (the general license of the tarball), despite sharing contents with grep.texi grep.1 is covered by the license of the tarball which is the GPL. - undistributable, because it has no license attached I don't think so. If grep.1 is undistributable so many others files are. grep.1 is not the only only file without an explicit license. Other files without an explicit license are: lib/alloca.c lib/closeout.h lib/hard-locale.h lib/regex.h lib/savedir.h lib/xstrtol.h po/cat-id-tbl.c src/dosbuf.c src/getpagesize.h src/grepmat.c src/vms_fab.c src/vms_fab.h vms/config_vms.h config.h Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, yet he makes gods by the dozens. -- Michel de Montaigne Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Free Operating System `. `' http://debian.org/ `- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
