Re: coreutils-6.4 released (stable)

[Matthew Woehlke]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke <address@hidden> writes:
> > FYI: You probably know this, but the patch you pointed me at did not
> > apply at all (I think one hunk in total went through), so I had to
> > apply the changes by hand.
>
> No, I didn't know that.
>
> What happens if you omit that patch entirely?  If it works without the
> patch, then we don't need to worry about that patch.

I'm quite certain I remember it bombing (there are 'unsigned long long's 
sprinkled in there without it). But I am guessing the problem is just 
that CVS is a little off of coreutils-6.4, which is what I was trying to 
patch. I think the main problems were things like 'HAVE_LONG_LONG' vs. 
'HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT' which caused 'patch' to reject most of the hunks. 
Applying the patches by hand was fine and (as I stated on bugs-m4) gave 
a successful build that passed 'make check'.

--
Matthew
"You're older than you've ever been / And now you're even older"
  -- They Might Be Giants