Paul Eggert wrote:
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
