On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Ulrich Wilkens wrote:
> On 10/04/12 10:17, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>
>>> #define BuildDtInfo NO or YES, and handle it like other
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> Of course a proper solution should be for other systems as well
>> if there is a need. I just wonder whether it will not be faster
>>
It will take a it for it to propagate around the planet, but it's up
there. Here's the relevant, and somewhat brief portion of the HISTORY
file:
# 2.2.0c (alpha) 10/4/2012
- Many 64b issues have been fixed, related to XtVaGetValues(), missing
prototypes, erroneous assumptions regarding the si
On 10/04/12 10:17, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>> #define BuildDtInfo NO or YES, and handle it like other
>
> Nice.
>
> Of course a proper solution should be for other systems as well
> if there is a need. I just wonder whether it will not be faster
> just to make dtinfo work - I didn't give it a try ye
On Oct 4, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>
> Nice, I really dislike using __FreeBSD__ but I can't test on others.
>
> What wonders me is the use of
>
> #define XDR __rpc_xdr
>
> in cde/lib/tt/lib/util/tt_xdr_utils.C. I wonder if it's correct
> even for OpenBSD (I removed CSRG_BASED t
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Jelle Hermsen wrote:
> Changed some occurrences of __FreeBSD__ to CSRG_BASED. These are all
> pretty clear cut cases. I left some out there where I'll still have to
> look further into (especially at the OpenBSD side of things).
Nice, I really dislike using __FreeBSD__ but I c
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Jon Trulson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>
> I guess my question on this one is - why do it differently for FBSD?
It's just a quick way to get correct packing list which we might
need to register binary packages with the OS at the end of the install.
>
