On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Arlin Davis wrote:
> > > Index: dapl/udapl/dapl_init.c
> > > ===
> > > --- dapl/udapl/dapl_init.c(revision 5854)
> > > +++ dapl/udapl/dapl_init.c(working copy)
> > > @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@
> > > *
>
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Thanks, Arlin. I think we'll use this stuff instead of Moni's patch, as
it's smaller and cleaner.
I do have a hack regarding the disti switch (OSVENDOR="REDHAT_EL4") required
for the uDAPL build. We
need to clean this up with a real disti check. I wasn't sure how t
James Lentini wrote:
Arlin,
I like this approach better than the one Moni took. I'd rather keep
the original makefiles clean and add a new "package" build system.
A coulpe of questions:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Arlin Davis wrote:
Index: dapl/udapl/dapl_init.c
==
Thanks, Arlin. I think we'll use this stuff instead of Moni's patch, as
it's smaller and cleaner.
> I do have a hack regarding the disti switch (OSVENDOR="REDHAT_EL4") required
> for the uDAPL build. We
> need to clean this up with a real disti check. I wasn't sure how to check and
> set the di
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 11:57 -0500, James Lentini wrote:
> I like this approach better than the one Moni took. I'd rather keep
> the original makefiles clean and add a new "package" build system.
Arlin's patch seems cleaner to me, too. It looks a lot more likely to
pass rpmlint straight off, for
Arlin,
I like this approach better than the one Moni took. I'd rather keep
the original makefiles clean and add a new "package" build system.
A coulpe of questions:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Arlin Davis wrote:
> Index: dapl/udapl/dapl_init.c
> ==
