[ccan] CCAN: code upload with name ogg_to_pcm.tar.gz

[Tim Post]

On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:03 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thursday 09 April 2009 14:17:00 Tim Post wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 13:06 +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > > 2009/4/9 Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au>:
> > > > On Thursday 09 April 2009 09:50:54 Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > >> Yes, but it was a nice topical point (we'd been discussing this recently
> > > >> on IRC).  And seeing the games people play lets us improve ccanlint :)
> > > >
> > > > Actually, your uploads (got wwviadio too, thanks!) raise a new question:
> > > > how to list non-ccan dependencies.
> > > 
> > > NOBODY has a good solution for that problem yet.
> > 
> > I was looking at pulling bits out of glibc 
> 
> Don't do that.  Seriously.

Well, I was mostly just interested in finding the structures to read it
and libc's understanding of the dozen + flags involved in deciphering
it.

You're right, its ugly. I didn't mean to frighten you :) I didn't mean I
intended to just copy the 60+ static functions needed to use the
functions that ldconfig does (and hordes of cryptic macros).

> Worst of all, it's not addressing a real problem.  If I have the
> dependencies wrong and the tests compile and pass, we have other problems.
> If they break, we don't really need to automate the general case to fix
> it.

I'm having a hard time coming up with any kind of sane client. Well, its
sane as far as ccan deps go. I didn't mean to be UNIX-like centric, its
just what I happen to use.

What I'll probably do is just extract the includes, which should fix all
but some structure missing a member due versions.

All I want is to make a client that tells someone if they are
introducing new (external) dependencies by grabbing a module, and if
they are missing that dependency.


> [1] http://ccan.ozlabs.org/Wiki/GoldenRule

I would never, ever consider uploading code that looks like it was
pulled right out of glibc. I appreciate that GNU software builds and
runs on damn near anything, but I am not a big fan of their coding
standards.

I was only considering extracting the bits to read the cache, getting
what I need out of it and writing something much, much simpler.

But yes, you're right, its a bad idea, thanks for calling me on it.

Cheers,
--Tim