[sane-devel] Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab

[Olaf Meeuwissen]

m. allan noah writes:

> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Olaf Meeuwissen
> <paddy-hack at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> Hi Allan,
>>
>> m. allan noah writes:
>>
>>> I have just pushed all these changes, and a few more to git repo. I
>>> have a few more minor bug fixes assigned to me that will go up in a
>>> few hours.
>>
>> Many thanks!  I've checked all my branches against 87bfd53, removed all
>> branches that are in from my GitLab clone and closed any related bug
>> reports.  Hope I didn't miss any.
>>
>> Talking about missing things, it seems you forgot about the Hungarian
>> translations.  There's a pu/add-hu.po-313073 branch on my GitLab clone
>> that has not been merged yet.  Any reason this didn't get in?
>
> Hmm- i missed that one. It is pushed now.

Thanks.  Closed the ticket and removed my pu/ branch.

>> Sorry about dropping the ball on the musl inb() outb() branch.  I had
>> meant to commit configure.in but seem to have committed configure :-(
>
> Do you have a version which uses AC_* macros instead of what I did? I
> think that would be cleaner.

I just applied the patch that Luiz mentioned on the mailing list[1].
Looking at that patch again I guess it'd be better to replace your stuff
with what's in the patch.  I've put up a pu/fixup-inb-outb-changes
branch to do just that[2].

 [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/luizluca/openwrt-packages/e11fbf71f7f437c64d18929e7895dbaafa8c3293/utils/sane-backends/patches/020-inb_outb.patch
 [2] https://gitlab.com/sane-project/backends/branches

>> After I pushed (what became) 9dd31f9 I had second thoughts when I
>> recalled that there was something special with lists constraints.
>> Cross-checking with the spec, it turns out my changeset is okay.
>
> Yes- I stared at that code for quite awhile. I think the new code is
> more clear, so even if it did not fix the problem, it is still a
> reasonable change.

It's not just more clear, it's the Right Thing to do for string type
constraint lists.  However, for a word type constraint list it would be
the wrong thing to do.

After I fixed the original code, I started to wonder why it was written
like that in the first place.  Then I remembered the Pascal string like
behaviour, where the first element contains the array size, for word
type constraint lists.

Hope this helps,
-- 
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2            FSF Associate Member since 2004-01-27
Support Free Software               Support the Free Software Foundation
https://my.fsf.org/donate                        https://my.fsf.org/join