Le 26/06/2014 01:49, Ken Moffat a écrit :
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 ].
ĸen
In France, the game is "jouer au chat" (play "cat"), and the one who is
touched becomes the cat (guess the others are mice) until he or she can
touch somebody else. I like the "Updated" field too. Unless DJ or
whoever put the patch first wants to change, I think we can keep the
patch as is.
Also, the first patch I committed is wrong, and the second attempt is
better but does not do what it is supposed to do, so I am perfectly OK
with the term "guilty".
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
