On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:56:23PM +0100, libor.buk...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hello,

> patches resolve the build failures, functionality, and performance issues on
> Solaris. A brief description is included in each patch.
> Please let me know whether these patches could be merged

patching file src/bpf.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 32.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/bpf.c.rej
patching file src/config.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 290 with fuzz 1 (offset -15 lines).
patching file src/dnsmasq.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1343 (offset -11 lines).
patching file src/ip6addr.h
patching file src/dhcp.c
patching file Makefile
patching file contrib/lease-tools/dhcp_release.c
Druk een willekeurige toets in...
patching file src/dhcp6.c
patching file src/dhcp-common.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 497 (offset 4 lines).
patching file src/dnsmasq.c
Hunk #4 succeeded at 891 (offset -4 lines).
patching file src/dnsmasq.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1556 (offset -11 lines).

> and which changes are necessary.

At http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2019q1/012803.html
and http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2019q1/012812.html
are examples of patches that can be applied with `git am`.

In http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2019q1/012751.html
is a nice example of a reminder on a proposal patch.  Yes, it does happen that
patches are overlooked.

And the mailinglist archive has posting with the wish of reducing the amounts
of '#ifdef'

Geert Stappers
DevOps Engineer

Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to