Andrew Haley wrote:
Phil Race wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Phil Race wrote:
I recall that we refactored the patch to touch fewer of the littlecms
internals. This helped since just 4 days after that patch the littlecms
version was upgraded from 1.16 to 1.18. I'd be surprised if you have
only th
Phil Race wrote:
>
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Phil Race wrote:
>>> I recall that we refactored the patch to touch fewer of the littlecms
>>> internals. This helped since just 4 days after that patch the littlecms
>>> version was upgraded from 1.16 to 1.18. I'd be surprised if you have
>>> only this
Andrew Haley wrote:
Phil Race wrote:
I recall that we refactored the patch to touch fewer of the littlecms
internals. This helped since just 4 days after that patch the littlecms
version was upgraded from 1.16 to 1.18. I'd be surprised if you have
only this patch and not the littlecms 1.18 pat
Phil Race wrote:
> I recall that we refactored the patch to touch fewer of the littlecms
> internals. This helped since just 4 days after that patch the littlecms
> version was upgraded from 1.16 to 1.18. I'd be surprised if you have
> only this patch and not the littlecms 1.18 patch. Maybe its 1.1
I recall that we refactored the patch to touch fewer of the littlecms
internals. This helped since just 4 days after that patch the littlecms
version was upgraded from 1.16 to 1.18. I'd be surprised if you have
only this patch and not the littlecms 1.18 patch. Maybe its 1.18
rather than this chang
I've been getting JCK failures in lcms, and it seems to be down to
this changset:
changeset: 1010:467e4f25965c
user:avu
date:Fri Mar 20 20:05:22 2009 +0300
summary: 6733501: Apply IcedTea little cms patches
The bug points to the webrev at
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/piperma
