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/Received on Tue Oct 24 2006 - 09:49:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:01 UTC