Re: Several changes made to fts.c in Gnulib

[Eric Blake]

On 07/27/2017 06:23 AM, James Youngman wrote:
> Looking at the patch, it looks not terribly burdensome to maintain
> "downtream" except for the possibility that some fts option could
> subsequently be introduced in gnulib which shares a value with
> FTS_NOLEAF.
> 
> Paul, since you don't plan to apply this patch upstream, do you have
> any suggestions for ensuring that we avoid collision or maintenance
> problems with the downstream patch?

As long as we maintain the patch in diff, then gnulib-tool will tell us
(any time we update git submodule for gnulib) whether we have to
regenerate the diff, at which point we can cater to a new option by
bumping our value for FTS_NOLEAF.  Here's an example of coreutils
storing its project-local diffs to upstream gnulib:
http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/gl/lib/tempname.c.diff

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature