getting patch 017 into upstream

2003-09-29 Thread Warren Turkal
Is there anyone that can give a better description for this bug? This is supposedly what patch 017 fixes. This is the message I got from Egbert Eich, an XF86 developer. The bug report is at http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=740 Any help on this would be much appreciated. Please append any

getting patch 017 into upstream

2003-09-29 Thread Warren Turkal
Is there anyone that can give a better description for this bug? This is supposedly what patch 017 fixes. This is the message I got from Egbert Eich, an XF86 developer. The bug report is at http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=740 Any help on this would be much appreciated. Please append any

Re: patch 017

2003-09-25 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 08:10:59AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Uh, no, there isn't. > > Oh, I guess you are right...my bad...but it does build fine without 017. I > thought that depend:: meant it was adding to the existing rule. I confused > the other depend:: rule

Re: patch 017

2003-09-25 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 08:10:59AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Uh, no, there isn't. > > Oh, I guess you are right...my bad...but it does build fine without 017. I > thought that depend:: meant it was adding to the existing rule. I confused > the other depend:: rule

Re: patch 017

2003-09-25 Thread Warren Turkal
Branden Robinson wrote: > Uh, no, there isn't. Oh, I guess you are right...my bad...but it does build fine without 017. I thought that depend:: meant it was adding to the existing rule. I confused the other depend:: rules. I thought they would take the place of the empty depend::. wt -- Warren

Re: patch 017

2003-09-25 Thread Warren Turkal
Branden Robinson wrote: > Uh, no, there isn't. Oh, I guess you are right...my bad...but it does build fine without 017. I thought that depend:: meant it was adding to the existing rule. I confused the other depend:: rules. I thought they would take the place of the empty depend::. wt -- Warren

Re: patch 017

2003-09-25 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:29:46PM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > Is anyone opposed to removing patch 017? It is not needed in XF 4.3 as there > is already a depend:: target in the Imakefile in xc/lib/X11. This will > bring that Imakefile in sync with upstream, I believe. Uh, no, th

Re: patch 017

2003-09-24 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:29:46PM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: > Is anyone opposed to removing patch 017? It is not needed in XF 4.3 as there > is already a depend:: target in the Imakefile in xc/lib/X11. This will > bring that Imakefile in sync with upstream, I believe. Uh, no, th

patch 017

2003-09-22 Thread Warren Turkal
Is anyone opposed to removing patch 017? It is not needed in XF 4.3 as there is already a depend:: target in the Imakefile in xc/lib/X11. This will bring that Imakefile in sync with upstream, I believe. wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org

patch 017

2003-09-22 Thread Warren Turkal
Is anyone opposed to removing patch 017? It is not needed in XF 4.3 as there is already a depend:: target in the Imakefile in xc/lib/X11. This will bring that Imakefile in sync with upstream, I believe. wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email