-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 William Pursell wrote: > > Here's a "janitorial" patch of the type I > mentioned in my last mail. A few questions: > > Is it necessary to continue using old K&R style > parameter declarations?
My feeling is no, but we should get confirmation from Juergen. Actually, I suspect we may have already broken it in some places (I certianly haven't been testing with a "traditional" compiler). > Would there be any problems dumping the > obsolete Makefile.in's and using Automake? I did this for the Wget sources I maintain (not in any released version yet). I would like to hold off on this until 4.1.0 is released: the primary focus needs to be on getting stability and reasonable confidence in the functionality we already have now. Alternatively, you're welcome to start making these changes in a separate branch. > I notice there is neither a 'check' nor > a 'test' target--is there a test suite? Nope. It'd be nice to have, but as the code is currently structured, probably pretty difficult. It's certainly something of a hassle doing this for Wget; but Wget at least is easily subjected to high-level, expected-versus-actual output tests. > A distclean target would be nice as well, > but it seems easier to use automake than > to start writing targets. Agreed. I'd say it's not a priority for 4.1.0, just leave it for when we add automake (assuming Juergen is agreeable to that move). - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer. GNU Maintainer: wget, screen, teseq http://micah.cowan.name/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI6QYF7M8hyUobTrERAmI9AJ9ZozPq4thB1GpnRAcM7PflBrMy9QCfZyE9 YI8kgQ/QqEDpHqnQfku9VoA= =4OsQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
