On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> At 4:42 PM -0800 2/14/01, Peter Prymmer wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> >
> >> I'd appreciate testing and/or comments before sending this along to p5p.
> >
> >It looks good to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >We seem to have a few back patches for configure.com
> >piling up: Charles Lane's fix for the PERL_REVISION='' thing
>
> Hmm. I'd forgotten about that.
>
> > plus the extra_pods.com and ccname
> >work that I wanted to get in,
>
> I thought these had gone to p5p.
No I sent them to vmsperl to request comment on them. I've not received
any so I ought to send my patches in - but you make a critical remark
below.
> > plus your request for cf_by and perladmin
> >overridability, plus the DOWN_LOGICAL_NAME_NOT_LIKELY test workaround.
>
> That'd be nice, but I don't think I'll get around to implementing
> anything real soon. Also, we have the following macros which should
> be tested for and either undef'd or defined appropriately:
>
> #define Shmat_t $shmattype /**/
> #define MEM_ALIGNBYTES $alignbytes
> #define PHOSTNAME "$aphostname" /* How to get the host name */
> #define VAL_O_NONBLOCK
> #define VAL_EAGAIN
> #define RD_NODATA
Yes those too.
> >Are
> >these getting into the vmsperl p4 repository?
>
> Er, what's that?
There is a separate perforce repository specifically for vmsperl.
Take a look at [.PORTING]REPOSITORY.POD;1 for further information.
> I suspect gsar and jhi would appreciate one or two configure.com
> patches rather than half a dozen little ones.
Indeed. This is why I mentioned the subject, it would also be beneficial
for vmsperl folk to have a crack at applying a comprehensive patch and
then do some test builds across some {compiler version} x {OS version} x
{hardware type} combinations to spot any trouble.
Peter Prymmer
