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 hack away at some of in my > free time.
If you want to do help with gnulib-tool.py, I would suggest not to continue directly with the comparison / review (because it's hard to keep track of what has been reviewed / tested and what has not), but rather work across the gnulib-tool.py.TODO file, from the bottom to the top. > I assume the best way to test it would be to create a small test > directory with a few modules? The best way to test it is to take a specific source package that uses a number of modules (I used wget2, but you can use coreutils or any other package), run gnulib-tool and gnulib-tool.py with identical command-line options, and compare/verify the results on either side. > I think all of the header file > replacements would break the build so whichever ones avoid using those. 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. Bruno
