On 05.03.2019 17:23, LRN wrote: > On 05.03.2019 17:07, E. Madison Bray wrote: >> >> If they're clean, worthwhile patches then I absolutely think you >> should get them integrated upstream if at all possible--that's almost >> always preferable. > > Okay, i'll see what i can do. >
Made some progress, but i would benefit from some input on a few things. 1) This[0] cygwinports commit and a related gnulib[1] commit. Which version of cygwin (CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR) corresponds to 1.7 (is the 1.7 number even correct?). As a less-intrusive fix, i can switch #ifdef __CYGWIN__ to #if defined(__CYGWIN) && (!defined (CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR) || CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR < somevalue) 2) This[2] cygwinports commit. I don't quite get what the author means. Does he mean that returning a path that looks like "//etc" from parsing a URI "file:////etc" is correct? Or the opposite, that it should return "/etc" ? The commit seems to be saying one thing, while the code does something else. [0]: https://github.com/cygwinports/glib2.0/commit/b61abed9554ab813ed358ea5bad648987573772e#diff-2d64c930085856723abe9a40105389abR256 [1]: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/lib/localcharset.c?id=9f5ab735f030faf651961d55ce3b849dd56dcff3 [2]: https://github.com/cygwinports/glib2.0/commit/40ca93c8ae81e7a05ec098246b43ce74e157ebd6#diff-c86c0d1edc7cdc043b8b01ee6e526817
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
