On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:16:11 +0200 Robert Nagy wrote:
Noone cares?
A better way is to submit the patch as a followup to the PR.
Then this PR may be committed after a maintainer timeout. HTH
On (2009-08-22 22:26), Robert Nagy wrote:
Basically - luasocket defines buffer_init(); which is
Noone cares?
On (2009-08-22 22:26), Robert Nagy wrote:
Hey,
Basically - luasocket defines buffer_init(); which is common enough to be
defined
elsewhere and it is defined in mod_magnet, so you end up with a SIGSEGV.
The attatched patch solves the issue by renaming the buffer_* funcs to
?
On (2009-08-22 22:26), Robert Nagy wrote:
Hey,
Basically - luasocket defines buffer_init(); which is common enough to be
defined
elsewhere and it is defined in mod_magnet, so you end up with a SIGSEGV.
The attatched patch solves the issue by renaming the buffer_* funcs to
Hey,
Basically - luasocket defines buffer_init(); which is common enough to be
defined
elsewhere and it is defined in mod_magnet, so you end up with a SIGSEGV.
The attatched patch solves the issue by renaming the buffer_* funcs to
ls_buffer_*.
Its a totally safe diff that does not affect
