Re: GUB usage

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:10:38AM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> For Octave, I'm trying to update GUB to use a newer gcc, and I'm
> running across a few problems.
> 
> I haven't done much, but here is my clone of the repo:
> 
>     http://hg.octave.org/gub
> 
> So now I need to patch the gcc sources because they have a small bug
> that prevents building, and here I am puzzled about the overall GUB
> architecture. Why is the patching logic spread out between actual
> patch files and Python spec files?

I'm not certain.  I think that things which are perceived as a
"quick fix" might be put into the python spec files, but you'd
have to have an answer from Jan to know for certain.

> For my current issue, I need to
> figure out this problem:
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-03/msg00041.html
>
> so for this I would write a patch file, right? Or should I put the
> patch logic in Python source code and use the file_sub() function?
> 
> Is there a simple mechanism in GUB for writing these patch files?
> Reading them, it looks like they were somehow automated, so I would
> like to know how they were generated.

My guess is that Jan edited the relevant files, then used plain
old diff.

> Finally, if I update the style of the Python to follow PEP 8 (e.g. no
> long lines), would you accept back those patches?

As long as we can still build LilyPond, sure!

Sorry, GUB is not really actively maintained.  I've CC'd Jan
Nieuwenhuizen in the hopes that he can provide more info.

Cheers,
- Graham