Hi Colin (nice name),
> I looked into what it would take for Debian's groff package to do a full
> rebootstrap from its packaged version of gnulib. It seems relatively
> straightforward, but it requires including bootstrap and bootstrap.conf
> in tarballs so that we know what modules to use.
I'm
On 4/4/24 3:24 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> Yeah, I know of gnulib-cache.m4. However, IMO there's no reason to drop
> down to that level when the bootstrap script is in use, because
> bootstrap generates gnulib-cache.m4. Also, ./bootstrap typically does a
> bit more, sometimes including extra packag
"G. Branden Robinson" writes:
> Another Col(l)in to the rescue! I think I will also update our
> "HACKING" file to document how to update the gnulib submodule and do the
> foregoing as well.
:). Sounds good. If I remember correctly Coreutils has instructions on
how to update Gnulib in README-
ead.
I've attached a patch to update them to the new naming.
Collin
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-12/msg00192.html
>From f1538b68099600ee84809b5c73642bd0b98cc1c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Collin Funk
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:21:37 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Up
Hi Alejandro,
Alejandro Colomar writes:
> Who in GNU/FSF should we talk to?
Emailing savannah-hackers-pub...@gnu.org is probably a good place to
start [1]. They can contact relevant FSF people if needed.
Collin
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-hackers-public
Alejandro Colomar writes:
>> On the other hand, I'm having issues with it; eventhough I don't have
>> issues with the gnulib module, it doesn't find the header. This is the
>> first time I use gnulib, so I have no idea why it's that. Do you know?
>
> Ahh, nevermind, it's not yet in a stable rel
Hi Bjarni,
Bjarni Ingi Gislason writes:
> CXX src/preproc/preconv/preconv-preconv.o
> ../src/preproc/preconv/preconv.cpp: In function 'const char* get_BOM(FILE*,
> string&, string&)':
> ../src/preproc/preconv/preconv.cpp:820:17: warning: comparison of integer
> expressions of different
Alejandro Colomar writes:
> Hmmm, from there it seems like we're a couple of days away from the next
> stable branch. Nice! I'll try next week and resend.
It was released today [1].
Collin
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2025-07/msg0.html
