> >> Michael Baeuerle wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I will add the test information to the STR and update the patch.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > All - I'm looking at this patch #2935 and it looks OK, and Michael
> reports that it works well on the problem targets. I find it does not
> break my linux builds.
> > I
On 16.04.2013 11:01, MacArthur, Ian (Selex ES, UK) wrote:
>
>> Michael Baeuerle wrote:
>>>
>>> I will add the test information to the STR and update the patch.
>>
>> Done.
>
> All - I'm looking at this patch #2935 and it looks OK, and Michael reports
> that it works well on the problem targets. I
> > I don't really know, but my feeling is that we should make the
> > minimal change, so that people can more easily see what has
> > *actually* changed.
> >
> > So... in that case I'd propose that you leave the existing code,
> > even where it is "wrong", but just try and make the new stuff be
>
>> To make it look consistent, should I repair this in the rest of
>> the file too?
> I don't really know, but my feeling is that we should make the
> minimal change, so that people can more easily see what has
> *actually* changed.
>
> So... in that case I'd propose that you leave the existing c
On 12.04.2013 12:09, MacArthur, Ian (Selex ES, UK) wrote:
>> I have tested the new code block for AIX on version 5.1 (which lacks
>> the prototype for 'mntctl()' in the header file).
>> I have tested the code block for NetBSD on versions 2.0 and 5.1 to
>> check that the version detection works as i
5 matches
Mail list logo
