Ken Moffat wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:23:46PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Em 25-06-2014 16:46, [email protected] escreveu:
Author: pierre
Date: Wed Jun 25 12:46:52 2014
New Revision: 2920
Log:
Regenerate cacerts patch for icedtea
Added:
trunk/icedtea/icedtea-2.5.0-add_cacerts-1.patch
Added: trunk/icedtea/icedtea-2.5.0-add_cacerts-1.patch
==============================================================================
--- /dev/null 00:00:00 1970 (empty, because file is newly added)
+++ trunk/icedtea/icedtea-2.5.0-add_cacerts-1.patch Wed Jun 25 12:46:52
2014 (r2920)
@@ -0,0 +1,557 @@
+Submitted By: Fernando de Oliveira <famobr at yahoo dot com dot br>
I put my name when I did a simple rediff or just put the LC_ALL=C, can't
remember. Please, the guilty one, now, are you. :-)
+Date: 2013-07-13
+Initial Package Version: 2.4.1
+Update: Modify instruction creating certificates to use LC_ALL=C
+ 2013-07-20
+ Regenerate for version 2.5.0 (P. Labastie, 2014-06-25)
+Upstream Status: Not Submitted
+Origin: DJ Lucas <dj AT linuxfromscratch DOT org>, Bruce Dubbs (mydate
function)
+Description: Allows the build to generate a valid JDK cacerts file using the
+ system installed CA certificates.
+
When I update a patch, I mostly leave the original submitter and
add my name and whatever I changed somewhere in the text, often at
the end. I had not noticed an Update: field - I like the idea, but
certainly each change ought to have someone credited : although svn
and git use 'blame' I don't think of it as "who broke it", but "who
tried to fix it", so I am reluctant to use "guilty", even in this
sense of "you touched it last, so you are 'it'". [ not sure if that
will be understood - in a children's game here, the one who gets
touched becomes "it" until he or she can touch somebody else ].
Take a look at 'svn annotate <filename>'
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
