Hi Bruno,
On 4/12/24 3:28 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> I am applying these two refactorings. Hope it makes this piece of code
> easier to understand.
Thanks!
It looks like you got all the cache tests passing. Nice work.
Collin
Collin Funk wrote:
> Then only set it to the cache or
> default in GLImport.__init__(). But that section of code is already
> sort of difficult to follow...
I am applying these two refactorings. Hope it makes this piece of code
easier to understand.
>From 27c5b31a42ccd5353ccff09d46dbaa0d105f0f0b
On 4/12/24 5:08 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> OK, if you want to rework this part, we need unit tests for it first.
> I have now added unit tests for the gnulib-cache.m4 handling; essentially,
> one test for each possible option.
>
> Before dealing with the 'jugtail' package, it would be good to make
Hi Collin,
> It looks like the reading of gnulib-cache.m4 will need to be reworked.
OK, if you want to rework this part, we need unit tests for it first.
I have now added unit tests for the gnulib-cache.m4 handling; essentially,
one test for each possible option.
Before dealing with the 'jugtail
On 4/10/24 7:23 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> $ cat ../glpyFfCgil-sh-err
> .../gnulib-tool.sh: *** missing --doc-base option. --doc-base has been
> introduced on 2006-07-11; if your last invocation of 'gnulib-tool
> --import' is before that date, you need to run 'gnulib-tool --import'
> once, with a
Another package that exhibits a difference:
$ export GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=sh+py
$ cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonym...@cvs.savannah.nongnu.org:/sources/jugtail co
jugtail
$ cd jugtail
$ $GNULIB_SRCDIR/gnulib-tool --update
.../gnulib-tool: *** gnulib-tool.sh failed but gnulib-tool.py succeeded!
Inspect .../g
