On 04/22/2011 07:10 AM, Sandon Van Ness wrote: > On 04/22/2011 04:57 AM, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> On 04/22/2011 02:55 AM, Sandon Van Ness wrote: >>> It didn't appear to be fixed on my machine so I am guessing the same >>> will be for you but definitely curious to here what happens. >> >> Are you sure you tested the patch? The fsck output indicates that >> fsck.jfs was built on March 4, but I sent the patch on March 7. >> > > Pretty darn sure. That date is *not* the compile date but instead just > the date that is listed in the source: > > ./include/jfs_version.h:#define JFSUTILS_DATE "04-Mar-2011"
Doh! You're right. I was thinking it was something it got at compile time. > I verified my source had the patch and my binary modification time shows > 1 minute after the edit time of the file from the patch: > > root@dekabutsu: 05:07 AM :~/jfsutils-1.1.15# ls -lsah ./libfs/log_map.c > 60K -rw-r--r-- 1 root 1000 57K 2011-03-16 07:50 ./libfs/log_map.c > root@dekabutsu: 05:07 AM :~/jfsutils-1.1.15# ls -lsah /sbin/fsck.jfs > 1000K -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 996K 2011-03-16 07:51 /sbin/fsck.jfs > root@dekabutsu: 05:07 AM :~/jfsutils-1.1.15# > > so I would have to say yes, I am about 98% sure that I did have the > patch applied properly. Yeah, I trust you, now that you pointed out the hard-coded date in the header. :-) I'll have to try to recreate the problem again and see what else needs fixing. Thanks, Shaggy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fulfilling the Lean Software Promise Lean software platforms are now widely adopted and the benefits have been demonstrated beyond question. Learn why your peers are replacing JEE containers with lightweight application servers - and what you can gain from the move. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfemails _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
