Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well, correcting the additional cruft under srclib/zlib and >> srclib/openssl, >> which are not part of the distribution, is a no brainer. > > AIUI, it changes our Makefile not theirs.
More to the point, it was their makefile (patched as needed, but that's not the point) ... but not the rest of their packages. We don't ship zlib/openssl sources in the package. In my build structure, they are just junctions. I was being 'clever' zipping up all the *.mak/*.dep files into a package - threw it on my linux export of the packages and unpacked it for the final result. My bad I forgot to unlink those junctions first. The directories themselves, nevermind the .mak files within them, should have never existed in a source package. >> So I presume you object to the six line patch I attached? As I begged, >> if anyone objects, I'll revert and repost. >> >> No cause for 2.2.5. > > I would post that under the patches/ directory and if you want, note > it in the 2.2.4 announcement. But, I largely view the releases as > sacrosanct once posted for review and voting. -- justin No hassle. Updated, fresh package in place with the patch reverted (may take a few to get from staging to live.)
