On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> I spent 5 minutes looking on http://www.isc.org for a way to actually send
>> them the patch only to be presented with requests to fill out a sponsorship
>> application before I could join their forums. As such, ISC doesn't have the
>> p
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
wrote:
>> (If so, it wasn't a minimal fix, since it affected more than that variant -
>> if not, it wasn't something that prevented the build on my local boxes or
>> the buildboxes, so I don't think it really qualifies under that policy).
>
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
bind9: Fix inlining
>>>
>>> What ticket is this
On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
>>>
>>> bind9: Fix inlining
>>
>> What ticket is this for? and/or what was broken that you fixed on this
>> non-open
On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
>>
>> bind9: Fix inlining
>
> What ticket is this for? and/or what was broken that you fixed on this
> non-openmaintainer port?
This is an obvious fix for a build failure. The seco
On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, jerem...@macports.org wrote:
>
> bind9: Fix inlining
What ticket is this for? and/or what was broken that you fixed on this
non-openmaintainer port?
It looks like now everyone who installs it needs autoconf and needs autoreconf
where before there were some patches
