On 2/19/24 1:36 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> You don't need to go to the './configure' and 'make' stages at this point.
> Just ensuring that the outputs of gnulib-tool and gnulib-tool.py are the
> same will sufficiently guide you.
Ah, I see. Thanks for this and the rest of the advice.
Collin
Collin Funk wrote:
> > 65% of the .py code has been verified to be in sync with the bash code;
> > 35% still to go. And then, the changes from the gnulib-tool.py.TODO list
>
> I see. I had it open and compared some of it to the shell script and it
> wasn't too hard to follow. Maybe I could help
Bruno Haible writes:
> The status: It's about 2/3 complete. 4 months of work have gone into it,
> and 2 months of work still remaining. (That's my estimation, based on
> two weeks of work that I put in, in 2022.)
> 65% of the .py code has been verified to be in sync with the bash code;
> 35%
Bruno Haible writes:
>> What is the status of the Python gnulib tool? I'm not sure how far
>> behind it is compared to the shell script but it seems like it would
>> be much faster. I would say more maintainable but I might just be bad
>> at writing shell scripts. :)
>
> Yes, it's the hope that
Hi Collin,
> GNU m4 gave the following error:
>
> bootstrap: running: gnulib/gnulib-tool.py --no-changelog --no-libtool
> --symlink --update
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/home/collin/.local/src/m4/gnulib/gnulib-tool.py", line 1171, in
>
> main()
> File
