Re: [lmi] Best way to integrate PCRE

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:10:34 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
wrote:

GC> On 2021-07-28 14:44, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > 
GC> >  I've agonized so long over this question
GC> 
GC> Then it's good that you raise it now. TL;DR:
GC>   Alexander : Gordian knot :: us : this

 I always thought Alexander cheated (this must be the reason I've never
conquered my own empire). But there is no arguing with the effectiveness of
this approach.

GC> > [...] in the native Linux
GC> > builds we could install libpcre2-8 from the system package and use this 
one
GC> > instead. This is appealing because it's simpler and faster (although
GC> > building PCRE doesn't take long, it's C code and so is fast to compile),
GC> > but OTOH it could result in different versions of PCRE being used in Linux
GC> > and MSW versions.
GC> AIUI, this affects only 'test_coding_rules' directly, and
GC> therefore 'hooks/pre-commit' indirectly. The solution is
GC> to withdraw msw support for those things. Kim and I never
GC> commit on any platform other than pc-linux-gnu; neither
GC> do we ever need to run 'test_coding_rules.exe'. Instead,
GC> let's provide only an ELF 'test_coding_rules', and expunge
GC> the corresponding msw binary utterly and forever.

 Thanks, I did think about this alternative but decided against even
proposing it because it just didn't seem right to stop providing this
executable under MSW, where it worked for many years until now.

 Note that this will also require making parts of makefiles conditional on
the target host, which wasn't the case so far. We can do this, of course,
but I just wanted to mention that this is going to make the makefiles
slightly more complex and less linear. I don't think you mind, as you
probably wouldn't have proposed doing this otherwise, but please let me
know if this consideration changes anything.

 Thanks,
VZ

pgp0fjILgm9_0.pgp
Description: PGP signature