On Monday, 5 September 2016 21:47:31 CEST Jim Meyering wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Pino Toscano <ptosc...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 20:47:15 CEST Jim Meyering wrote: > > ... > >> Another thing: should some deprecation warning/note be added regarding > >> the progname module? > > > > I like the idea of adding a deprecation warning. > > If it could be completely replaced, I'd suggest to add the "Status: > > deprecated" attribute to its modules file, but we don't have a > > replacement for set_program_name, so there may still be legitimate > > uses. If a future change were to move set_program_name into its own > > new module, *then*, we could officially deprecate the progname module.
Makes sense to me, what about the attached patch? > >> Is NEWS the proper place for them? Attached there > >> is a small documentation addendum. > > > > Good idea. > > While this is not officially an incompatible change, converting is > > invasive enough that this NEWS blurb belongs in that section. > > I've split a long sentence and merged that into your first commit. > > And pushed. Thanks! > >>> I'm prepared to push the attached, but will wait for your ack. > > > > If you're interested, one more thing that may help avoid trouble would > > be to add a syntax-check rule to prohibit new uses of this module, > > including new inclusion of progname.h, new declarations of > > program_name or anything else you can think of that should no longer > > be done here in gnulib. I needed to check that more in detail, although it's low priority IMHO. > FYI, while adapting grep to use this module, I encountered a single > new error/warning. The attached patch fixes that: Thanks for the fixup. Did you find any other issue there due to the progname -> getprogname switch? Thanks, -- Pino Toscano
From ed4bf2451ca279289cfe6606ce7f7b6ce53f3236 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pino Toscano <ptosc...@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:33:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] progname: mark as obsolete Suggested by Jim Meyering in: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-09/msg00007.html * modules/progname (Status): Mark as obsolete. (Notice): Suggest to use 'getprogname' instead for the getprogname() case. --- ChangeLog | 9 +++++++++ modules/progname | 7 +++++++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index b99af4e..8f9ac90 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +2016-09-06 Pino Toscano <ptosc...@redhat.com> + + progname: mark as obsolete + Suggested by Jim Meyering in: + http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2016-09/msg00007.html + * modules/progname (Status): Mark as obsolete. + (Notice): Suggest to use 'getprogname' instead for the getprogname() + case. + 2016-08-18 Pino Toscano <ptosc...@redhat.com> main.mk: remove sc_program_name, since there is no more need to diff --git a/modules/progname b/modules/progname index a9a53b9..4dae619 100644 --- a/modules/progname +++ b/modules/progname @@ -1,6 +1,13 @@ Description: Program name management. +Status: +deprecated + +Notice: +This module is deprecated. Use the getprogname() function from the module +'getprogname' instead. No replacement is available for set_program_name(). + Files: lib/progname.h lib/progname.c -- 2.7.4
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
