Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Matthew Barnes wrote:
>> there was concern that simply turning it on would somehow break existing
>> installs.  I'm fuzzy on the details, but vaguely recall it being about a
>> field size in some binary file being dependent on sizeof(off_t), which
>> would change with LARGEFILE support enabled and thus break the binary
>> format.
> The summary files would have had this problem, but they would have just
> been regenerated, so not really an issue.

Also, this is why the summary files had versioning info.


Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to