This has turned from a simple, 30 minute patch into a lot more effort than I am willing to put into it right now, all to fix something I don't even use, personally.
I'm afraid I'm putting this one on a back burner for now. On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Phillip Moore > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well, if this simple patch to the current pioctl can be made without all > > that overhead, then someone else can fix this, unfortunately. I thought > > this would be relatively simple, and it's a fix I don't really need > > personally. Sorry to be selfish... > > The real question is: do I need a new pioctl for this? I'm just > modifying > > the existing code and changing it's behavior. > > which is precisely why you need a new pioctl. which isn't that hard. > just mail the registrar and ask for the next one. >
