From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs Subject: Re: Files from gnulib Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:15:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83y66bzuhc.fsf@gnu.org> <4D3C81A1.70009@cs.ucla.edu> <83ipxfymox.fsf@gnu.org> <4D3E0A8E.1030400@cs.ucla.edu> <8362tdzl7m.fsf@gnu.org> <4D3E8E4C.1010000@cs.ucla.edu> <4D3F1171.5010201@cs.ucla.edu> <83y668yfgt.fsf@gnu.org> <83lj28y7h4.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295993801 17486 80.91.229.12 (25 Jan 2011 22:16:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, bug-gnulib@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 25 23:16:36 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PhrBk-0005Su-84 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:16:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59731 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhrBj-0001uN-Ij for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:16:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54530 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhrBd-0001tJ-Tm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:16:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhrBc-00079q-OD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:16:29 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:35989) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhrBc-000780-HV; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:16:28 -0500 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p0PMFgRo010594; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:15:42 -0500 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id AF25E130004; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:15:37 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83lj28y7h4.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:54:47 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3735=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:134966 gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs:24931 Archived-At: > Based on the experience from GDB, here are the problems with this > approach: > . The remapping of file names cannot be fully automated. Once all > limits on file names are removed ("we don't want even the > slightest impediment", says Jim), sooner or later you get to the > point where the number of files to be renamed becomes large and a > human needs to define how files will be renamed, because you want > names that at least remotely resemble the original ones, but still > don't clash in the 8+3 namespace. (I hope no one is seriously > entertaining the idea of producing meaningless names like > foo~123.c or ABC123EF.c, from some hash or whatever). Yes, I was assuming that there would still be few files, and that the renaming would be human-controlled (but the make-dist script signals an error if the human-provided rules don't cover all cases). So it wouldn't help for cases like CEDET. > . Once the remapping is maintained by humans, it becomes unreliable. Why is that? > . The unpacking instructions are part of the tarball, and need to be > extracted separately before the "main" extraction begins. More > importantly, the remapping file needs to be extracted before that > as well. This makes the entire unpacking procedure extremely > complicated and thus error-prone, except if the person who does > that is the one who designed it and wrote the instructions in the > first place. Rather than distribute a file that needs to be passed to djtar, I was thinking of distributing a script tailored to MS-DOS, run instead of djtar, and which would run djtar insternally. So this script can provide the instructions. > In addition, there will be a need to deal with something that the GDB > distribution doesn't. In GDB, the files that are renamed during > unpacking are only those that are not used for the DOS build. By > contrast, here we want to rename files that are used during the build. Yes, that's a much bigger problem. In the mean time, please rename the files, thank you, Stefan