On 03.04.2019 15:16, LRN wrote:
> On 05.03.2019 17:23, LRN wrote:
>> On 05.03.2019 17:07, E. Madison Bray wrote:
>>>
>>> If they're clean, worthwhile patches then I absolutely think you
>>> should get them integrated upstream if at all possible--that's almost
>>> always preferable.
>>
>> Okay, i'll see what i can do.
>>
> 
> Made some progress, but i would benefit from some input on a few things.
> 
> 1) This[0] cygwinports commit and a related gnulib[1] commit. Which version of
> cygwin (CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR) corresponds to 1.7 (is the 1.7 number even
> correct?). As a less-intrusive fix, i can switch
> #ifdef __CYGWIN__
> to
> #if defined(__CYGWIN) && (!defined (CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR) ||
> CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR < somevalue)
> 
> 
> 2) This[2] cygwinports commit. I don't quite get what the author means. Does he
> mean that returning a path that looks like "//etc" from parsing a URI
> "file:////etc" is correct? Or the opposite, that it should return "/etc" ? The
> commit seems to be saying one thing, while the code does something else.
> 
> 
> [0]:
> https://github.com/cygwinports/glib2.0/commit/b61abed9554ab813ed358ea5bad648987573772e#diff-2d64c930085856723abe9a40105389abR256
> 
> [1]:
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/lib/localcharset.c?id=9f5ab735f030faf651961d55ce3b849dd56dcff3
> 
> [2]:
> https://github.com/cygwinports/glib2.0/commit/40ca93c8ae81e7a05ec098246b43ce74e157ebd6#diff-c86c0d1edc7cdc043b8b01ee6e526817
> 

Hello? Anybody?