On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:30:59 -0800 Wes wrote: WH> a) lack of compilation on a major architecture is something I'd WH> like to fix if we can (I'm with Dave, I'm a unix bigot but I'm WH> trying not to let that influence this message). Thus, I'd be WH> for the simple (.h only) MinGW patch iff [sic!] it doesn't break WH> Cygwin and the normal MS compiler and we check this.
The ifdef is only around a config_require, which doesn't affect MSVC. Cygwin gcc doesn't define WIN32, so it will continue to require the module in question, exactly as before. I have verified that this is the case. I was unable to actually build on cygwin, due to other problems, but configure worked as expected. WH> a) it forces review. I'm not sure that this is/will be the case. I think that most of the time, people will look at the problem and vote whether or not the problem needs to be fixed. I doubt there will be much review of the actual fix, unless it's in an area someone if familiar with. If everyone has to understand the fix before voting for it, we'll get a lot fewer votes. WH We've just proved this is a good thing WH> (Robert caught a bug before it got committed). The reason I caught this one was because it was a change to my patch. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
