Re: [PATCH] Add func_append_quoted and do inline func_append substitutions.

2010-07-03 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Peter, On 2 Jul 2010, at 00:25, Peter Rosin wrote: Den 2010-06-28 01:24 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: Looking through the XSI substitutions, or more correctly the bash/ksh func_append usage, there's room here to consistently use func_append everywhere to make for easier maintenance... but rather

Re: [PATCH] Add func_append_quoted and do inline func_append substitutions.

2010-07-03 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Peter, On 2 Jul 2010, at 00:38, Peter Rosin wrote: Den 2010-06-28 01:24 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: Looking through the XSI substitutions, or more correctly the bash/ksh func_append usage, there's room here to consistently use func_append everywhere to make for easier maintenance... but rather

Re: [PATCH] Add func_append_quoted and do inline func_append substitutions.

2010-07-03 Thread Peter Rosin
Den 2010-07-03 09:18 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: s/func_append/func_append_quoted/ ? Yes, please push. Done. Cheers, Peter

Re: [PATCH] [cygwin|mingw] fix dlpreopen with --disable-static (take 8?)

2010-07-03 Thread Charles Wilson
On 6/28/2010 3:23 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: Hi Chuck, Thanks for persevering with the Windows support in Libtool. Regarding our patch review process, I honestly find the tough reviews valuable in keeping up the quality of my patches, not least because it makes me more careful not to

Re: [PATCH] [cygwin|mingw] fix dlpreopen with --disable-static (take 8?)

2010-07-03 Thread Charles Wilson
On 6/28/2010 2:10 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:05:40AM CEST: So...we APPEAR to have a bunch of dead code. I wasn't aware of that. Sorry about the sloppy review. It obviously isn't SUPPOSED to be dead -- or it wouldn't be there. Well, I

Re: [PATCH] [cygwin|mingw] fix dlpreopen with --disable-static (take 8?)

2010-07-03 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010, Charles Wilson wrote: That's an...interesting take. I've never assumed that ANY contribution would be acceptable unless it received an actual approval by a maintainer. I mean, really: here's this patch, and no single maintainer has endorsed it without some significant

Re: [PATCH] [cygwin|mingw] fix dlpreopen with --disable-static (take 8?)

2010-07-03 Thread Charles Wilson
On 7/3/2010 7:05 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sat, 3 Jul 2010, Charles Wilson wrote: That's an...interesting take. I've never assumed that ANY contribution I think that you are attributing to much special status to official maintainers. It should not matter where approval comes from as

Re: [PATCH] [cygwin|mingw] fix dlpreopen with --disable-static (take 7)

2010-07-03 Thread Charles Wilson
On 6/26/2010 2:51 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: OK. Here's my take on this: if you fix all nits I noted inline below, post the updated and tested patch (you decide what testing is needed), then you are OK to commit after 72 hours of waiting. FWIW, I'm likely not available most of next week; if

Re: [PATCH] Avoid false failures caused by filesystem interaction

2010-07-03 Thread Charles Wilson
On 6/26/2010 6:57 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: + /* Use a magic string to avoid possible interactions with filesystem + * objects. Prepend '/' to short-circuit libltdl's search of In very nit-picky mode, the GCS wants to have two spaces after an end-of-sentence period. No big deal either