[ccan] Packaging what exists for ccan

[Ryan Graham]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Tim Post <echo at echoreply.us> wrote:
> Does anyone really use 'T' or 't' to indicate a boolean true in a
> configuration file? I'd like to refactor this and other functions.

I don't follow the question... The code is only checking the first
character of the string. It's not checking that said character is the
only one in the string. And that's how it is documented to work. Are
you proposing to make it more strict, so that it actually looks for
the whole word?

> So, if I do so .. should I just change the name of the module to
> cfgparser or something similar? I also want to add some stuff, such as
> the ability to:
>
> include /etc/myprog.d/startup.cfg

I happen to use iniparser in one of my projects, and while I don't
have a use for includes at the moment, I can see how the feature could
see some use..

> To the syntax. I hate forking other people's stuff, period. The original
> author is now (like me) quite busy being a dad, he's made it quite clear
> that patches are likely to go to /dev/null.

He does seem to have all but abandoned the code. Maybe he could point
to the ccan module that you are packaging and it could become the
"official" version? Not quite forking, but similar effect.

> Is it ok if ccan modules by the same name as other counterparts differ a
> little from the original?

Keeping the same name would be convenient, since it's pretty
descriptive. In this case, I'd see if the original author has an
opinion.

~Ryan
-- 
http://rmgraham.blogspot.com