Revision 1.89 of MANIFEST introduced io/io_unix.c, but configure dies
becuase the file isn't there...
- D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To: Parrot Internals [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Problem with MANIFEST (missing io/io_unix.c)
Revision 1.89 of MANIFEST introduced io/io_unix.c, but configure dies
becuase the file isn't there...
- D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pic22062.pcx
Description: Binary data
]
cc:
Subject: Problem with MANIFEST (missing io/io_unix.c)
Revision 1.89 of MANIFEST introduced io/io_unix.c, but configure dies
becuase the file isn't there...
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
)
To: Melvin Smith/ATLANTA/Contr/IBM@IBMUS, David M. Lloyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Parrot Internals [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problem with MANIFEST (missing io/io_unix.c)
At 02:39 PM 1/9/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
Must be Dan's magic fingers again. I renamed
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:39 PM 1/9/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
Must be Dan's magic fingers again. I renamed io_os.c to io_unix.c but
probably
it got lost in the shuffle.
Weird. It's in my local MANIFEST from the patch, and CVS is convinced
that it's up to date.
At 01:50 PM 1/9/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:39 PM 1/9/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
Must be Dan's magic fingers again. I renamed io_os.c to io_unix.c but
probably
it got lost in the shuffle.
Weird. It's in my local MANIFEST from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Melvin Smith/ATLANTA/Contr/IBM@IBMUS, Parrot Internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problem with MANIFEST (missing io/io_unix.c)
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:39 PM 1/9/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
Must be Dan's magic fingers again. I renamed
At 02:55 PM 1/9/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
I suspect its the diff flags I use when I send to Dan. I use -urN (or
--newfile)
which should create the new file if it doesn't exist but this happened last
time
I made a new file as well. That always worked when I used to send patches
to
