Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 20:22:06 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Upgrade contributed gperf, m4 and flex Message-ID: <20111202192206.GB1913@azathoth.lan> In-Reply-To: <20111202071633.GD4444@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <20111125190137.GA4420@azathoth.lan> <20111202071633.GD4444@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:16:33PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 08:01:37PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > and last: upgrade flex to the latest upstream version (it will need the= m4 > > upgrade) while here I'll move back flex to contrib/ > > patches can be found there:=20 > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/flex-update.diff >=20 > Hi Baptiste, > I cannot tell from this what you are really doing. >=20 > It would likely be best to keep the old history, so that would involve > a 'svn move usr.bin/lex contrib/flex'. >=20 > Additionally if flex is now considered to be 3rd-party code (signified by > living in contrib/) it should be imported we into '$REPO/base/vendor'. >=20 > These actions would give a different diff than that above. >=20 > Do you have a diff that shows what the real changes to FreeBSD are? There are about no changes to FreeBSD, all the changes that were added in o= ur tree in the old version found their way into the upstream version I have two warning fixes, one in the generated code, and on the the flex code itself, = I'm planning to push them upstream. concerning the push into contrib, it was ju= st to try to do things the same way other contributed code are in our tree, maybe= I should just let it into the usr.bin/lex, I have no real opinion on this, I thought it would have been cleaner living in contrib. >=20 >=20 > > I also plan to upgrade m4 syncing code from openbsd, taking code from n= etbsd > > (improve gnu m4 compatibility). > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/update_m4_from_openbsd_and_netbsd.diff >=20 > We don't seen to have '$REPO/base/vendor/OpenBSD/m4' as we likely should. > How different is our usr.bin/m4 from OpenBSD's? I didn't create a directory in vendor as our version is already from openbsd without the vendor entry, and lots of code like this one (ie from other bsd= ) do not have their entry in vendor, for example makefs and no one asked me to p= ush it into vendor/NetBSD at that time, once again if this the right way to do,= I'll create the OpenBSD/m4. Concerning the difference with the OpenBSD version this is only cosmetics a= nd warning fixes: function declared in a old fashion way, and small things like that, also took some fixes and way to build it from NetBSD (importing ohash which they took from OpenBSD). >=20 >=20 > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/upgrade-gperf-to-3.0.3.diff >=20 > I assume an import into '$REPO/base/vendor/gperf/' will happen first? > ['$REPO/base/vendor/gperf/' needs to be "flattend out" first] > o I missed that one, I'll fix it as soon as possible. > thanks, Thanks for feedback. regards, Bapt --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk7ZJV4ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EytjgCdG2PDPEGvQyDs7jr8kpVd8V/Z GoIAoLup4azxQVebkXUSo+nuIjPmZ4qV =oaqg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111202192206.GB1913>