[xinit] XSLASHGLOB

[Thomas Klausner]

Hi Alan & other X.Org developers!

Can you please take a look at this? No comments for two months, but no
commit either.

I've also asked about a patch I sent last August that had no feedback,
for xrdb.

I'm planning on sending more diffs soon but wanted to get the old
stuff committed first.

Thanks,
 Thomas

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:59:34PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:18:10PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > On 07/12/12 04:57 AM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > While looking at NetBSD xsrc patches I found one for xinit.
> > > 
> > > Index: xinit/dist/xinitrc.cpp
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvsroot/xsrc/external/mit/xinit/dist/xinitrc.cpp,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.1.1.3
> > > retrieving revision 1.2
> > > diff -u -r1.1.1.3 -r1.2
> > > --- xinit/dist/xinitrc.cpp      21 Nov 2010 03:47:48 -0000      1.1.1.3
> > > +++ xinit/dist/xinitrc.cpp      6 Mar 2011 01:05:51 -0000       1.2
> > > @@ -84,8 +84,9 @@
> > >  XCOMM This is the fallback case if nothing else is executed above
> > >  #endif /* !defined(__SCO__)  && !defined(__UNIXWARE__) */
> > > 
> > > +XCOMM do not use slash-star in the glob; slash-questionmark-star is equivalent
> > >  if [ -d XINITDIR/xinitrc.d ] ; then
> > > -       for f in XINITDIR/xinitrc.dXSLASHGLOB.sh ; do
> > > +       for f in XINITDIR/xinitrc.d/?*.sh ; do
> > >                 [ -x "$f" ] && . "$f"
> > >         done
> > >         unset f
> > > 
> > > The commit message was:
> > > Use xinitrc.d/?*.sh as the matching pattern instead of needing a
> > > fragile sed substitution XSLASHGLOB to produce xinitrc.d/*.sh. (If
> > > that were used literally the slash-star would confuse cpp.)
> > > 
> > > Fixes PR 44619. Patch has been sent upstream.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't know where it was sent or if the discussion had a result, so
> > > I'd like to know if the patch would be accepted? (with an additional
> > > patch removing it from cpprules.in as well).
> > 
> > Seems reasonable to me - I don't remember discussing it before, and does
> > seem cleaner than patching it up in sed.
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I've just sent a git diff for cleaning this up.
>  Thomas