From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Gary V. Vaughan" Subject: Re: [patch 12/16] host-OSF1.patch Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:07:37 +0000 Message-ID: <20100428090736.GE36271@thor.il.thewrittenword.com> References: <20100427135708.258636000@mlists.thewrittenword.com> <20100427135904.486582000@mlists.thewrittenword.com> <20100427143912.GB36271@thor.il.thewrittenword.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Tor Arntsen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 28 11:07:46 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O73F9-0000R5-J8 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:07:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753008Ab0D1JHi (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:07:38 -0400 Received: from mail1.thewrittenword.com ([69.67.212.77]:52898 "EHLO mail1.thewrittenword.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752022Ab0D1JHh (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:07:37 -0400 Received: from mail1.il.thewrittenword.com (emma-internal-gw.il.thewrittenword.com [192.168.13.25]) by mail1.thewrittenword.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A5B5C48; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:28:46 +0000 (UTC) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.4.4 mail1.thewrittenword.com E3A5B5C48 Received: from thor.il.thewrittenword.com (thor.il.thewrittenword.com [10.191.57.1]) by mail1.il.thewrittenword.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22CF2AFC; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by thor.il.thewrittenword.com (Postfix, from userid 1048) id 0B115BAB4; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96 at maetel.il.thewrittenword.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:48:53PM +0200, Tor Arntsen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 16:39, Gary V. Vaughan > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:10:56PM +0200, Tor Arntsen wrote: > > >> but (ref. a patch I sent earlier, in its > >> first revision) I needed several other changes in order to compile on > >> 5.1 (I also needed those you have above), e.g. > >> -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=1 NO_STRCASESTR = YesPlease NO_STRTOUMAX = YesPlease > >> NO_STRLCPY = YesPlease NO_MEMMEM = YesPlease NO_UINTMAX_T = YesPlease > >> NO_C99_FORMAT = YesPlease > >> and > >> NO_TCLTK = YesPlease > > > > Indeed, I don't mean to imply that this patch is all that is needed > > for OSF1, merely that the changes it contains benefit only OSF1. > > I see. In that case, as I have verified that those changes are indeed > necessary for OSF1: > > Acked-by: Tor Arntsen Wow, all these different pseudo-headers are starting to make my head spin! ;) > > Please bear in mind that I build using configure, and may have missed > > something necessary for a make-only driven build. > > Ah, Ok, that would explain it. I too found that with ./configure fewer > changes were needed. The patch I was working on I tested both with and > without configure. If your patch goes in I could follow up with the > changes needed for when not using configure, if you don't wish to > tacke that. Much appreciated, thank you. Unless it's a requirement for having these patches accepted upstream, then I'd rather not worry about the make only builds... I've mentioned elsewhere that the idea of reliable builds predicated on the idea that it is possible to maintain a static database of what options are required on each combination of libc/cc/os/patchlevel with any kind of reliability seems fundamentally flawed to me. Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (gary@thewrittenword.com)