On macOS 12.5, I'm seeing this test failure:
$ ./test-striconveha
../../tests/test-striconveha.c:426: assertion 'retval == 0' failed
Apparently the transliteration of /usr/lib/libiconv.2.dylib does
not work like the GNU libiconv one.
Either this is a copy of GNU libiconv 1.11 with modified
Hi Collin,
> > I.e. you meant to write
> > mode != None
> > not
> > modules != None
> > ?
>
> The second fixes this typo. Thanks for noticing it.
But there's another typo in the same line: The original code
case $mode,$gnu_make in
*test*,true)
echo "gnulib-tool: --gnu-make not
Collin Funk wrote:
> So the --avoid modules are emitted in the order they are passed to
> gnulib-tool, but the actual modules will be alphabetically sorted.
> Therefore, I think the correct code would be:
>
> if len(avoids) > 0:
> actioncmd += ''.join([f" \\\n# --avoid={x}" for x in avoids])
Hi Bruno,
On 2/24/24 5:25 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> None of the 'sort' invocations in gnulib-tool are covered by an
> entry in the gnulib-tool.py.TODO file. Therefore the most promising
> approach to finding the cause of the difference is to
> - go through all 'sort' invocations in gnulib-tool,
Hi Collin,
> The first one fixes an item in the
> gnulib-tool.py.TODO file. Previously the "Generated by gnulib-tool"
> comment at the top of the Makefile would be on one line.
Thanks! Applied.
Only one question on this one:
> +if len(avoids) > 0:
> +actioncmd +=
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for fixing the typo in the other email. I'll remember to use
'foo' instead of "foo". That is a personal habit of mine but I now
realize that it goes against all of the existing code...
On 2/24/24 3:42 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> The sorted(...) instruction is not present in
On 2/24/24 4:47 PM, Collin Funk wrote:
> Anyways, upon further inspection not all of the gnulib-modules are
> sorted in merge-gnulib. When "unlocked-io" was added to Emacs it was
> placed after "update-copyright" [1]. I assume that they are sorted
> somewhere before the actioncmd step in
Hi Bruno,
The pythonic way is
mode is not None
rather than
mode != None
(the reason is None is an object)
Just in case,
Dima
On 24 February 2024 23:25:51 GMT, Bruno Haible wrote:
>Hi Collin,
>
>> > I.e. you meant to write
>> > mode != None
>> > not
>> > modules != None
>> > ?
