On Thu 06 Jul 2006, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Question for Paul: Your patch changes a few typedefs. How do I know > that those changes are enough?
Well, it worked for me after that! Seems to me easy enough to verify for yourself (on a 32-bit platform!). In any case, the current state of affairs is clearly worse than with the patches, so applying them can't hurt. The patched version worked fine for me up to the time I upgraded to amd64. > [ I would feel better, for example, if just adding `getconf LFS_CFLAGS` > to CFLAGS would make gcc to issue some warnings, and those warnings > would disappear by applying the patch (which changes some typedefs). > However, gcc does not issue any warning ]. Probably because gcc doesn't understand the internals of unzip (those typedefs are used in places that isn't immediately clear that system calls may be involved a bit later on), or perhaps things are typecast using those typedefs, which will guarantee that gcc won't complain. Anyhow, it's been _quite_ some time since I looked at the unzip sources. Paul Slootman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
