On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:12:24AM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 6/25/13 6:20 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:06:11PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> On 6/24/13 5:09 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> >>> On 06/24/2013 07:45 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3
On 6/25/13 6:20 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:06:11PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
On 6/24/13 5:09 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
On 06/24/2013 07:45 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3.82 is known to be broken.
A number of vendors are providing a modified versio
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:06:11PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 6/24/13 5:09 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> > On 06/24/2013 07:45 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3.82 is known to be broken.
> >>
> >> A number of vendors are providing a modified version, so checking
> >> for j
On 6/24/13 5:09 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
On 06/24/2013 07:45 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3.82 is known to be broken.
A number of vendors are providing a modified version, so checking
for just the version string is not enough. We also need to check
if the patch for the
On 06/24/2013 07:45 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3.82 is known to be broken.
A number of vendors are providing a modified version, so checking
for just the version string is not enough. We also need to check
if the patch for the issue has been applied. We use a modi
See GNU Savannah bug 30612 -- make 3.82 is known to be broken.
A number of vendors are providing a modified version, so checking
for just the version string is not enough. We also need to check
if the patch for the issue has been applied. We use a modified
version of the reproduced to check for
