Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:22 CST:
> BTW, if the guidelines for patch submission had been followed, there
> would not have been a "better" patch ;-)
I see your smiley, so consider this just a play on the policy here.
There was no reason to follow the patch submission policy
On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> To have a guideline that says use an old patch that applies with
> fuzz and offsets when a better patch exists to do the same thing
> without fuzz and offsets, is just plain silly.
Offsets are probably ok, they just mean that the lines were
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 13:46 CST:
> Probably would have been better to use the original patch in the BLFS
> instructions rather than just re-diffing to follow the patch
> submission guidelines.
That guideline is flawed. :-)
To have a guideline that says use an old patch t
On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I created it, and applied it, for the BLFS instructions, and all BLFS
> patches must also be in the LFS repo.
Probably would have been better to use the original patch in the BLFS
instructions rather than just re-diffing to follow the patch
> Using this procedure, I cannot see how there would be a difference in
> what the two different patches would do. Other than the patch that
> doesn't apply cleanly leaves behind files.ext~ files in the tree. And
> these files are not significant to anything.
Yes, I believe in that particular inst
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:06 CST:
> Also FYI, I was told not to bother with re-diffing patches. One I
> re-diffed did happen to get accepted for the repository, but only after it
> was shown that the 'fuzzy' patch created a couple of unwanted files.
You know, the more I th
> I was required by policy to add the rediffed patch to the LFS repo. :-)
>
> I created it, and applied it, for the BLFS instructions, and all BLFS
> patches must also be in the LFS repo.
>
> I didn't want to have to field all the support questions for why the
> patch applies with fuzz and stuff an
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:06 CST:
> Also FYI, I was told not to bother with re-diffing patches. One I
> re-diffed did happen to get accepted for the repository, but only after it
> was shown that the 'fuzzy' patch created a couple of unwanted files.
I was required by polic
> Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:45 CST:
>
>> Just because a patch has fuzzy offsets doesn't mean it hasn't been
>> tested.
>
> This is true. However, the Expect patch applies with so many offsets
> and fuzz remarks, that I rediffed it and it is in the LFS patches
> repository.
Also
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:45 CST:
> Just because a patch has fuzzy offsets doesn't mean it hasn't been tested.
This is true. However, the Expect patch applies with so many offsets
and fuzz remarks, that I rediffed it and it is in the LFS patches
repository.
Just FYI.
--
Rand
Lyn St George wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:16:12 +0100 (BST), Ken Moffat wrote:
The patch succeeds, but with fuzzy offsets of up to 103 lines, which
raises suspicions about it being tested for this version.
Just because a patch has fuzzy offsets doesn't mean it hasn't been tested.
--
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:16:12 +0100 (BST), Ken Moffat wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah .. my error. This is the Hardened LFS book. (I had copied the pages
>> into .sh scripts, which were placed in the LFS-6.1 directory created when
>> the Automated LFS package untarred. Co
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
>
> Ah .. my error. This is the Hardened LFS book. (I had copied the pages
> into .sh scripts, which were placed in the LFS-6.1 directory created when
> the Automated LFS package untarred. Completely confused myself here ..)
>
> I built an LFS5.1 system som
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:09:00 +0100 (BST), Ken Moffat wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
>
>> Hallo all
>>
>> Hope someone here can help on this. Building LFS6.1, I've got
>> as far as ch 5.9, expect 5.43. It refuses to compile, claiming that
>> gcc is cross-compiling with:
>>
>> "WNOH
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
> Hallo all
>
> Hope someone here can help on this. Building LFS6.1, I've got
> as far as ch 5.9, expect 5.43. It refuses to compile, claiming that
> gcc is cross-compiling with:
>
> "WNOHANG requires _POSIX_SOURCE... configure: error: Expect can't be cross
Hallo all
Hope someone here can help on this. Building LFS6.1, I've got
as far as ch 5.9, expect 5.43. It refuses to compile, claiming that
gcc is cross-compiling with:
"WNOHANG requires _POSIX_SOURCE... configure: error: Expect can't be cross
compiled"
Omitting the initial
"env CC=${target}-
16 matches
Mail list logo
