Hi Christian,
I actually replied to this on December 22nd and was waiting
for your input...
It looks that my e-mail never made it to the list and I didn't
notice (my client/ISP setup is definitely flakey here >.>)
Sorry about that. Here is the e-mail I sent:
-----
-------------%<---------------------------------------------------------
./compile trysizeofushort.c && ./load trysizeofushort
echo '#define SKALIBS_SIZEOFUSHORT' `./trysizeofushort` > sizeofushort.h
/bin/sh: ./trysizeofushort: No such file or directory
echo '#define SKALIBS_USHORT_BITS' `expr 8 \* \`./trysizeofushort\`` >>
sizeofushort.h
/bin/sh: ./trysizeofushort: No such file or directory
expr: syntax error
echo '/* sysdep: sizeofushort:' `./trysizeofushort`'*/' >> sizeofushort.h
/bin/sh: ./trysizeofushort: No such file or directory
./compile trysizeofuint.c && ./load trysizeofuint
echo '#define SKALIBS_SIZEOFUINT' `./trysizeofuint` > sizeofuint.h
/bin/sh: ./trysizeofuint: No such file or directory
echo '#define SKALIBS_UINT_BITS' `expr 8 \* \`./trysizeofuint\`` >> sizeofuint.h
/bin/sh: ./trysizeofuint: No such file or directory
expr: syntax error echo '/* sysdep: sizeofuint:' `./trysizeofuint` '*/'
sizeofuint.h
/bin/sh: ./trysizeofuint: No such file or directory
echo '/* ISC license. */' > sysdeps.h
echo >> sysdeps.h
echo '#ifndef SYSDEPS_H' >> sysdeps.h
echo '#define SYSDEPS_H' >> sysdeps.h
echo >> sysdeps.h
-------------%<---------------------------------------------------------
That is very weird. Can you go to compile/sysdeps and run by hand
./compile trysizeofushort.c
./load trysizeofushort
to see what happens, and post the error message if any ?
Nevertheless, it's a bug: if there's an error at those stages, the compilation
should fail instead of silently propagating the error. I'll fix the Makefile
for the next release, thanks.
Just for the records regarding the massive change from 1.3.0 -> 1.4.0:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
357 files changed, 2302 insertions(+), 1674 deletions(-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This really shows the usefulness of a public repository in my opinion
where people could see the changes in a more atomic way and I do not
really get why you refuse to provide something like that.
I don't see the logical connection here. Yes, the change from 1.3.0 to
1.4.0 was massive. The file package/CHANGES sums up what I've been working
on; for people who want to dive into it, grabbing both tarballs and
performing a more or less fancy diff, as you have done, works. If there is
a problem with the latest version, the right thing is to send a bug-report
so I can fix things upstream - which is what you did, and I thank you for
that. I try to be generally reactive as far as bugfixes as concerned.
I realize a public repository would certainly be more convenient for you
(yeah, all 5 of you people in the world interested in skalibs development).
However, the skarnet.org server, where I develop, is also a permanent
experiment and a showcase. Any software that runs on it has to:
- be as close to bug-free as software gets
- be lightweight (that also means C only, maybe C++ if it's otherwise perfect,
and as few dependencies as possible)
- compile with musl and link statically without trouble
- run its web UI, if any, with pure CGI (suitable to be served by busybox
httpd).
I'm very anal about this - it's the very point of my project in the first
place,
and when I can't find software that fits my constraints, I write it. (And
there's
no way I'm going to write a version control system in the next 40 years.)
So far, git with cgit (not gitweb) almost looks like a suitable candidate. But
since I'd have to compile and set it up manually - as I do with every piece of
software running on skarnet.org - and it isn't absolutely needed, for now I have
not been prioritizing it. I can probably be talked into trying it out, if you
insist long enough.
-----
--
Laurent
