-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
STATUS-libposix
127 lines (96 loc) · 4.23 KB
/
STATUS-libposix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Status for libposix
===================
This file documents the status of work-in-progress.
No ChangeLog entries are needed for this file.
Status for the libposix branch
------------------------------
Bruce Korb says:
I think a real big step in libposix is to get a little experience with it.
There are also some few little nits pointed out in the discussions that
need some careful consideration, but some experience in using it would
be good, too. The intended/expected usage is along the lines of:
1. configure, build and install the thing. Perhaps from:
http://autogen.sourceforge.net/data/
or roll your own, but the distribution should be there, I think.
2. fiddle a project to detect that it is "sufficiently recent" to
cover the needs of this unnamed project. That is an interesting
issue, though: the concept behind "configure" is that you do
feature tests rather than version testing. However, if you choose
to not test the version of libposix and test the features you
need of libposix, then I have an extremely difficult time trying
to understand the point of libposix -- you are back to running
a bunch of feature tests that take too long. Testing for a
libposix current as of some marker (version number or date)
seems right to me, though there are some caveats to consider
regarding "retired" POSIX features.
Anyway, the "fiddle a project" should boil down to testing
for libposix in some way and then dying if it is not up to snuff.
3. configure, build, test, install and test installation of said project.
TODO list for master
--------------------
Bruno Haible says:
1) ... 7)
proposed by Gary in the thread starting at
[PATCH 0/7] contents of topic/libposix for merge to master
in <https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/threads.html>
1) Allow generate header files to coexist without shadowing each other.
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00283.html>
Discussion:
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00289.html>
Still missing: dealing with include_next and old compilers, cf.
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00269.html>
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00285.html>
2) Allow using libgnu's file name in module descriptions.
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00284.html>
Discussion:
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00291.html>
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00308.html
3) iconv_open's file file list
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00282.html>
Discussion:
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00290.html>
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00307.html>
libposix needs to install only selected headers, not all of them. Let the
script look at the 'Include:' section of each module description.
4) Module libposix
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00280.html>
Discussion:
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00292.html>
More discussion needed
5) Installable headers
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00281.html>
Discussion:
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00293.html>
Patch to be rewritten to use nobase_nodist_include_HEADERS,
also need to add an Automake conditional to distinguish libposix from
other projects.
Also see whether the Automake bug can be fixed.
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00325.html>
6) libposix subdirectory
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00277.html>
Discussion:
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00294.html>
7) use git-version-gen for version numbering
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00279.html>
Discussion:
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00297.html>
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00303.html>
Patch to be revised.
8) Licensing
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2010-12/msg00184.html>
Status: A majority of the issues have been handled.
Obsolete modules (free, memcpy) can be ignored.
To be done:
getcwd
faccessat
fdopendir
linkat
mkfifoat
openat
readlinkat
renameat
symlinkat
utimensat
9) Versioning
<https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2011-01/msg00163.html>
Status: No real plan exists.