<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/12/2003 11:47:13 AM:
> > I hope that helps.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> Yes, since 0) is what I did, I now know I did the right thing
Jarkko's reply would indicate that it is OK for you to proceed
with a p4 edit and a p4 submit. For his part Jarkko might try to
issue p4 revert sooner rather than later (if necessary preceeded
by an appropriate setting of $P4CLIENT for the environment).
> No, I did get no respons to the patch announcement, from not even one
person
> on the Cc list, so either
> - nobody cares
> - all agree
> - nobody understands
>
> Now I'd just like to know what Jarkko is changing, so I could maybe
anticipate
> on that. Let's just hope he did not accidently leave a dangling open p4
edit
Apparently he did. Since your comment solicitation was so nicely worded
allow me to proceed with my own remarks for your consideration. I presume
you wanted commentary on the new *.cbu file patch (please correct if I am
wrong about that). Among other things I noted that it seemed to introduce
new filenames such as for example:
> if $test -f uselargefiles.cbu; then
> echo "Your platform has some specific hints regarding large file
builds, using them..."
> . ./uselargefiles.cbu
> fi
If I recall correctly Configure still needs to be able to run
under the port of bash to djgpp on MS-DOS and/or PC-DOS which
still have the 8.3 file naming limitation. I guess
that I would recommend shortening long CBU file names such as
uselargefiles.cbu, uselongdouble.cbu, etc. so that such call
back units might be used on platforms with odd filename limitations.
Admittedly it is unlikely that large files or long doubles will
be in the C implementations on djgpp, hence the test -f can
safely bypass those two examples on djgpp. But I think you
are trying to set a precedent with the *.cbu files and you
might want to be mindful of the limitations imposed on odd
platforms such as djgpp on DOS.
Peter Prymmer
