On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Joe Mistachkin <sql...@mistachkin.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > * miniz-1.16br1 >> > >> > IMHO, if any library we fold in to our source tree has updates, we >> > should evaluate them. Miniz certainly fits that description, the >> > question may be where the official upstream source is located post >> > google-code's closure. >> > >> >> Yes, if we are going to retain support for it, it needs to be up-to-date >> (especially it appears to have some issues that zlib does not have). >> >> However, before updating it, we really need to find its official source. >> >> If it's no longer actively maintained, we should probably just remove it >> from the tree. >> > > Someone (Baruch?) posted a link to the now-official github site, but > AFAICS it's not actively maintained. i mailed the guy a couple of times > with C89 portability patches and got no response, but IIRC Baruch reported > getting a response from him. > > In any case, i tend to agree - if it's not maintained, we should drop it > because it's not a piece "just anyone" can get their fingers in and tweak > I forwarded my conversation with him to this list. If anyone wants to take it up from there... -- ˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı
_______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
