|
From: | Matthew Woehlke |
Subject: | Re: coreutils-6.4 released (stable) |
Date: | Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:56:12 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061025 Thunderbird/1.5.0.8 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 |
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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |