Sascha Steinbiss wrote...

> Do you mean 'do not apply the patch as-is'? If so, can you elaborate
> please? Of course I understand that it's better to have upstream come up
> with their own solution, but that doesn't mean that your patch isn't
> helpful ;)

Replace "-1" with "850879" two times in the patch header since I didn't
have that bit of information by the time of the writing. Claims I wrote
my message to enforce a thorough review are completeley unsubstantiated.

> I'm not really sure about the 'grep "_buildInclude('"
> >&2' line in though -- is it really
> required or just a debugging relic?

But it worked! You're right, please drop that.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to