Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:49:10 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, current@freebsd.org, tjr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: replacing FreeBSD's -lgnuregex with GNUlib's version Message-ID: <200610240749.11234@aldan> In-Reply-To: <20060926184447.GA17862@nagual.pp.ru> References: <200609202304.25537@aldan> <200609261302.40964.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20060926184447.GA17862@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 14:44, Andrey Chernov wrote: = On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:02:40PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > Any news on this? = = I basically look at locale stuff, they sypport multibyte which is good. = = Someone must test its compatibility with GNU regex and understand in = details nature of their changes/fixes/differences. Without this work we = can't blindly replace stable code with unknown one just for reason it is = actively maintained. What kind of test would be deemed sufficient? -mi = > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:04:24PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > > > A recent discussion on the gm4 and gnulib mailing lists over the = > > > merits of gm4's bundling of its own regex implementation has produced = > > > the suggestion, that we replace our src/gnu/lib/libregex (which is = > > > currently obtained from fedora-glibc-2_3_4-21) with gnulib's = > > > implementation. = > > > = > > > The latter is claimed to be more actively maintained and with more bug = > > > fixes, than glibc people have managed to incorporate. = > > > = > > > Does anyone have a strong preference for fedora/glibc implementation = > > > currently in use, or should we follow this advice (source -- regex' = > > > maintainer for gnulib -- CC-ed) and switch over? = > > = > > Please point to gnulib's regex sources to compare with. = = = -- = http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200610240749.11234>