On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 14:02 -0400, Drew Jensen wrote:
>
> On 3/18/2010 12:18 PM, Terrence Enger wrote:
> > Okay, you have caught my interest.
> >
>
> Hi Terry,
>
> Excellent - not nearly as good as your email though.
>
> Kind looks like something to coax Ocke out for a comment,
actually...but
>
>
> > However, to avoid build error
> > conflicting declaration 'typedef int BOOL'
> > in at least odbcconfig.cxx, I have been patching the distributed
source
> > by blanking out the line
> > typedef int BOOL;
> > from my (Ubuntu Hardy) /usr/include/iodbcunix.h and copying the
result
> > to the two files
> > connectivity/inc/iodbcunix.h
> > dbaccess/inc/iodbcunix.h.
> >
> > Does this impact the value of my tests? Should I mention it in any
> > contribution to any issue?
>
> (I have also patched
> > svl/source/misc/inettype.cxx as per issue 109146 (cws sb121) and
> > sv/source/filter/asc/parasc.cxx for issue 109179 (own
improvisation).
> > Could these be relevant to Base?)
> >
> took a quick look - Question: You think that your patch got in
because
> of the emails, or you are asking if you should submit the patchs?
I suspect that I have nothing worth submitting.
(*) iodbcunix.h: I made the change to iodbcunix.h while I was still
trying to do my first ever build of OOo. I think it far more
likely that I have missed, misread, or misunderstood build
instructions than that anything in OOo actually needs fixing. Or
maybe I have screwed up my installation in some way. But most of
all, what I am doing is very simple-minded, and I do not know
enough about OO configuration or autoconfigure to offer anything
better. Meanwhile, I want not to waste the time of those who do
know what they are doing.
(*) inettype.cxx: Yes. I asked a question on d...@openoffice.org, and
that provoked Stephan Bergmann to create the issue and the patch.
My current local build incorporates his patch plus the
(unreferenced) additional function quoted in
<http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=26782>.
(*) parasc.cxx: I just deleted two lines (and one of those was a
comment reading in its entirety "// !!!!!"). Hardly worth
entering against the issue, right?
>
> For the next hour need to attend else where -
And I went off to look at issue 94543, and I promptly managed to
provoke another, completely unrelated, assertion. Going off now to
try again. (Gee, it would be nice if the submitter had been more
forthcoming about what he did. Sigh!)
Cheers,
Terry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@dba.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@dba.openoffice.org
