Bug#361925: Reason for another [v]snprintf implementation?

2007-08-06 Thread Craig Small
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 04:32:05AM +, brian m. carlson wrote: Sometime ago, I looked at the bug in common/lpd_jobs.c, but was unable to figure out what semantics were intended. If the semantics intended were a concatenation of the lines, I believe there is a function which does that.

Bug#361925: Reason for another [v]snprintf implementation?

2007-08-05 Thread brian m. carlson
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:58:35AM +1000, Craig Small wrote: On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 07:40:44PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: Is there a particular reason that we need this vsnprintf implementation? Could we just use the one included in libc? There may of been a reason. Upstream has now

Bug#361925: Reason for another [v]snprintf implementation?

2007-05-20 Thread Craig Small
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 07:40:44PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: Is there a particular reason that we need this vsnprintf implementation? Could we just use the one included in libc? There may of been a reason. Upstream has now changed and I do know they were looking into lots of things, the

Bug#361925: Reason for another [v]snprintf implementation?

2007-05-19 Thread brian m. carlson
Is there a particular reason that we need this vsnprintf implementation? Could we just use the one included in libc? If libc's implementation is satisfactory, a patch is attached that uses it. Note that this is not the only bug present: /usr/bin/gcc-4.2 -I.. -I. -I./include -I./common