[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Patches

From: Andrew Clausen
Subject: Re: Patches
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:33:19 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/

Hi Nathaniel,

On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 11:00:12AM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> Just wanted to give you some of the patches we use for parted.  They all
> apply cleanly to parted-1.6.10.  If you are able to merge these into
> parted (for the main distribution), please let me know.  Also, please
> let me know if there are any problems with any of the patches.  Thanks!

Thanks for the patches.

* assert: will apply

* hfs: not tested enough (regression tests, etc.) - will put in 1.7.x...
Does anyone disagree?  If lots of people have been using it, I can be

* gcc-3.3: what's the problem it's fixing?  Compiles for me without
the patch (gcc 3.3.3).
Those are 32, not 64-bit ints, so they shouldn't have LL on the end?

* 2.6-headers: #undef scares me... better to just avoid a name collision?
Also, this is from include/asm/, which is maintained in a very decentralized
fashion.  This makes me nervous.  Are we sure it's safe to do this?
I guess the kernel folks will want binary compatibility, so it
probably isn't going to change, but I'd like to hear the arguments anyway...
(eg: what about new arch's?)

* pyparted: weird patch.  What is the Right Thing?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]