On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Xin LI wrote:
Perhaps as an errata?
On Mar 29, 2010 7:42 PM, "Garrett Cooper" wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Xin LI wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM...
Hmm... is it possible to release note it after the fact (or at
least release note all ma
Perhaps as an errata?
On Mar 29, 2010 7:42 PM, "Garrett Cooper" wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Xin LI wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM...
Hmm... is it possible to release note it after the fact (or at
least release note all major / outstanding items discovered shortly
after
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Xin LI wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> [...]
>>> This isn't a hypothetical concern. When I initially tried gtar
>>> 1.23 on 7.3/amd64, it left a trail of coredumps because of this.
>>
>> Is there a bug outstanding for this?
>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
[...]
>> This isn't a hypothetical concern. When I initially tried gtar
>> 1.23 on 7.3/amd64, it left a trail of coredumps because of this.
>
> Is there a bug outstanding for this?
This has been fixed in RELENG_7 before 7.3-RELEASE but re
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Christian Weisgerber
wrote:
> There is a silly bug in RELENG_7 up to and including RELENG_7_3:
> fdopendir(3) is available in libc, but the prototype is missing
> from .
>
> This can have unexpected consequences. A configure script can
> notice that fdopendir() i
There is a silly bug in RELENG_7 up to and including RELENG_7_3:
fdopendir(3) is available in libc, but the prototype is missing
from .
This can have unexpected consequences. A configure script can
notice that fdopendir() is available, but due to the missing
prototype, the function will be typed
