On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 02:37:22PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > I agree that this information (and a quote of the actual build failure) > was missing from the initial bug report, so here goes: Now I've got context :)
Really I think PATH_MAX should be defined, but I prefer the way things are in your patch so the whole "should or should not PATH_MAX be there" thing goes away. > They are in the `hurd' package (only on hurd-i386, of course). Right, which is why I don't find them in (my i386 world) usual places. > In any case, this is post-lenny, of course. We'd just be interested in > discussing whether you consider the patch OK to apply after the lenny It seems ok, the main difference will be to check that the renamed binaries are renamed before doing the update-alternatives. Minor differences really. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
