"James Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'll consider myself notified. Apart from that bugfix are there any > other essential changes I should import, or are you suggesting I > update the whole of gnulib to current CVS?
Generally speaking, I find it easiest just to sync all of gnulib. That's what everyone else does. It's simpler, since you don't need to worry so much about integration hassles within gnulib. > I am using an older version of gnulib because I try to change the > stable release series of findutils only to fix bugs. Updating to the > newest current release of gnulib every time I release findutils seemed > to me to be a lot of code churn; the gnulib code usually changes more > than the findutils code, at least for the stable releases of > findutils. True, but the gnulib code tends to be fairly stable, and most other distributions (coreutils, tar, bison, etc.) just use the latest gnulib code. I'd put findutils in the same category as coreutils as needing stability, and (if memory serves) as far as gnulib is concerned findutils uses a subset of what coreutils uses, so if it's good enough for coreutils.... > I don't have an effective mechanism (other than diff -r) of figuring > out what changes occurred in gnulib between two releases of findutils, > either. If you take gnulib snapshots, you can diff the gnulib ChangeLog entries. Admittedly there will be many entries for files you're not using. Or you can keep track of when you snapshotted gnulib, and use CVS to find out what changed, by telling CVS the dates.
