On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 05:08:40PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> To make it more clear, what do you think about renaming the patch so it
> doesn't refer to cpio, and adding references to Rush and Dico in the
> patch?
Yes, I was thinking the same. But this is a very singular case, and now
everybody
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 10:57:03PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Andreas Enge skribis:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:22:30PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> >> The patch file 'cpio-gets-undeclared.patch' was "de-applied" to the cpio
> >> sources when we upgraded cpio to 2.12 (92d0fcb6dc5). But,
Andreas Enge skribis:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:22:30PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> The patch file 'cpio-gets-undeclared.patch' was "de-applied" to the cpio
>> sources when we upgraded cpio to 2.12 (92d0fcb6dc5). But, it was never
>> deleted or removed from gnu-system.am.
>
> I think it can
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:22:30PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> The patch file 'cpio-gets-undeclared.patch' was "de-applied" to the cpio
> sources when we upgraded cpio to 2.12 (92d0fcb6dc5). But, it was never
> deleted or removed from gnu-system.am.
I think it can be safely removed. The patch its
The patch file 'cpio-gets-undeclared.patch' was "de-applied" to the cpio
sources when we upgraded cpio to 2.12 (92d0fcb6dc5). But, it was never
deleted or removed from gnu-system.am.
So, should we delete it or re-apply it? I guess the answer depends on
whether or not cpio still uses gets().
I sea
