Another attempt of my work with a new subject, first item

Another attempt of my work with a new subject, first item

[Alain Knaff]

[Trying again as a new message rather than as a reply]

Hi,

On 17/11/2024 03:18, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Alain Knaff <alain@knaff.lu> wrote:
>>
>> I've now split up the patch into parts. In addition to just the
>> splitting, the patch set contains the following changes/improvements:
>> - adapted it to dash 0.5.12 which has been released in the meantime,
>> - some cleanup,
>> - it now also compiles & works on Solaris 10 & 11
>
> I'm sorry but something has gone wrong.  None of your patches have
> been picked up by patchwork:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dash/list/
>
> Perhaps try resending just one small patch to debug the problem
> before you do the whole thing again?
>
> One thing to try would be to send the patch inline instead of as
> an attachment.
>
> Thanks,

Ok, so here goes 01. Please tell me how it goes, and if ok, I'll send the others.

If it goes well, can I send the others as replies to my initial message each, without repeating explanation text?

Thanks,

Alain

diff -X ../exclude.txt -urN dash-0.5.12/src/bltin/bltin.h dash-0.5.12+01-remove-extraneous/src/bltin/bltin.h
--- dash-0.5.12/src/bltin/bltin.h	2020-06-03 01:19:23.000000000 +0000
+++ dash-0.5.12+01-remove-extraneous/src/bltin/bltin.h	2024-10-20 18:26:46.960598638 +0000
@@ -63,7 +63,6 @@
 #define fputs outstr
 #define fflush flushout
 #define fileno(f) ((f)->fd)
-#define ferror outerr
 #endif
 #define INITARGS(argv)
 #define	error sh_error
diff -X ../exclude.txt -urN dash-0.5.12/src/jobs.c dash-0.5.12+01-remove-extraneous/src/jobs.c
--- dash-0.5.12/src/jobs.c	2022-01-20 05:54:13.000000000 +0000
+++ dash-0.5.12+01-remove-extraneous/src/jobs.c	2024-10-27 19:53:42.912675611 +0000
@@ -112,9 +112,6 @@
 STATIC void forkchild(struct job *, union node *, int);
 STATIC void forkparent(struct job *, union node *, int, pid_t);
 STATIC int dowait(int, struct job *);
-#ifdef SYSV
-STATIC int onsigchild(void);
-#endif
 STATIC int waitproc(int, int *);
 STATIC char *commandtext(union node *);
 STATIC void cmdtxt(union node *);
diff -X ../exclude.txt -urN dash-0.5.12/src/mystring.c dash-0.5.12+01-remove-extraneous/src/mystring.c
--- dash-0.5.12/src/mystring.c	2022-12-11 06:29:21.000000000 +0000
+++ dash-0.5.12+01-remove-extraneous/src/mystring.c	2024-10-20 18:27:56.634245499 +0000
@@ -46,7 +46,6 @@
 #include <errno.h>
 #include <inttypes.h>
 #include <limits.h>
-#include <inttypes.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include "shell.h"
 #include "syntax.h"

Re: Another attempt of my work with a new subject, first item

[Herbert Xu]

Alain Knaff <alain@knaff.lu> wrote:
> [Trying again as a new message rather than as a reply]

The threading doesn't matter.  It's the Subject that causes a
new patch to be created.

> Ok, so here goes 01. Please tell me how it goes, and if ok, I'll send the others.

Yes it worked.  But please use a more meaningful Subject for the
rest of your patches.

> If it goes well, can I send the others as replies to my initial message each, without repeating explanation text?

Each email should come with its own Subject and the body of the
email should describe what the patch does and why it's needed.

Both the Subject and body will be used to create the git commit.

Thanks,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt