On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:00 AM, George Vasick <George.Vasick at sun.com>wrote:
> Liu Siwei wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The updated wevrev looks fine, there's some minor comments/questions from >> my gut: >> >> Makefile.sfw: >> >> Seems like $(PATCH) should be sufficient for these two lines? >> >> 76 $(GPATCH) -N $(VER)/src/libnet_link_dlpi.c < >> libnet_link_dlpi.c.patch >> >> 86 $(GPATCH) -N $(VER64)/src/libnet_link_dlpi.c < >> libnet_link_dlpi.c.patch >> > > $(PATCH) is not defined in Makefile.master. With the other modifications > in place, it appears I can use either patch or $(GPATCH). Since the patches > appear to have been generated with gdiff originally, I thought using > $(GPATCH) would be more consistent. It's interesting that I cannot tell libnet_link_dlpi.c.patch was originally generated by which. But using $(GPATCH) seems to be more consistent, just as you said. > > > >> >> >> makefile.in.patch: >> >> Was it re-generated by $(PATCH)? >> > > It was regenerated by gdiff. I used gdiff since the the output format > seemed to match what was used previously. okay, that sounds good. > > >> 1 --- libnet/src/Makefile.in 2010-01-13 15:47:10.175644000 -0800 >> 2 +++ libnet.working/src/Makefile.in 2010-01-13 15:55:39.019687000 >> -0800 >> >> >> >> And seems like patching to both src/Makefile.in and src/Makefille.am was >> redundant. The patch to Makefille.am can be left out if you don't want >> Makefile.in regenerated by automake. >> > > You are correct, it was preexisting in Makefile.sfw, but I will remove it. > Thanks for doing that, the webrev all looks pretty fine. FWIW I am about to fix the other two libnet bugs: 6883325 and 6776222. I've no idea a merge with yours is neccessary or not, but seems it is. Do you have a putback target right now? Thanks, -Siwei > > Update webrev: > > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gvasick/6828622/<http://cr.opensolaris.org/%7Egvasick/6828622/> > > > Thanks, > George > > > >> Regards, >> -Siwei >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM, George Vasick <George.Vasick at >> sun.com<mailto: >> George.Vasick at sun.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Please review my changes for 6828622, libnet Makefile invokes gcc >> directly, it should use $(CC) instead: >> >> >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gvasick/6828622/<http://cr.opensolaris.org/%7Egvasick/6828622/> >> <http://cr.opensolaris.org/%7Egvasick/6828622/> >> >> >> There are two makefile fixes: >> >> - Makefile.sfw corrected to remove warnings from the build logs >> - gcc replaced by $(CC) in makefile.in.patch >> >> >> Thanks, >> George >> _______________________________________________ >> sfwnv-discuss mailing list >> sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org <mailto:sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org> >> >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sfwnv-discuss >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/sfwnv-discuss/attachments/20100119/d05856d6/attachment.html>
