I would vote for patch from Red Hat NOT to be applied. It even does not compile on RedHat ;-) typing make returns syntax errors that is because their patch messed up some Makefile.am.
You get around that, then it does all kind of weird thing on RedHat 6.1 box. For example: bison -d .y No such file or directory .y several sed stuff is broken too on RedHat 6.1 box. We will be increasing a big risk of breaking several OS, surpsingly it compiled on SGI IRIX 6.5.5, just for fixing some minor compiler warnings. Suhaib > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Daniel > Kirchner > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 12:22 PM > To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de > Subject: Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use > > > Nice to know it isn't just me. Patch is not descending the directory > structure. I have a question in to Elliot on how to apply it, > and will post his > answer. > Pete > > "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" wrote: > > > Well, I got the patch from RedHat site: > > > > http://people.redhat.com/sopwith/opendx-misc.patch > > > > If I try to apply it to DX code retrieved from CVS yesterday. > 99% of hunks > > failed. > > > > I tried patch -p1 and patch -p0 options. I cannot get patches applied? > > > > So, what am i doing wrong? May be I forgot, over night, how to apply > > patches ;-) > > > > Suhaib > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Peter Daniel > > > Kirchner > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 10:22 AM > > > To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de > > > Subject: Re: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use > > > > > > > > > A couple of weeks ago I asked for tests of a large patch > submitted from > > > redhat. We heard back from Jeff with his partial OK, and that's > > > it. I think > > > these patches should go in and we should fix obvious breakage > > > prior to 4.1 . > > > Pete > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > I'm in. Any objections? > > > > > > > > BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the > standard gnu build > > > > structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of > code changes > > > > for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make them > > > compatible > > > > with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. I > > > think its a > > > > necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of > > > the exec that > > > > doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff. > > > > > > > > So. Are we go for 4.1.0? > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@opendx.watson.ibm.com on > > > > 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM > > > > > > > > Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de > > > > > > > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > To: <opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de> > > > > cc: > > > > Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use > > > > > > > > Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? > > > > > > > > I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed > XDK 6.2 and > > > > MSVC > > > > 6.0 > > > > out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual > > > editings, if we are > > > > set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the version > > > number now, > > > > instead of redoing it again. > > > > After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot > of new headers > > > > and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source > patching. M$ is > > > > about > > > > to > > > > release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated > library and > > > > header > > > > changes again. > > > > We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is > > > released. It > > > > may make binaries > > > > unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped > > > now before we > > > > get into another cycle of > > > > unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. > > > > > > > > Suhaib >
