On 15/07/07, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the risk imposed by your patch on builds with potential
> other/future MinGW versions that do ship with localtime_r?
I've checked the latest MinGW source code, and this does not include
localtime_r, so there's no immediate problem. I
Dave Shield wrote:
> The current code assumes the presence of "chown()" and
> "localtime_r()" routines - neither of which are supported by MinGW
> (or at least, not the version I was working with).
>
> I'm therefore appending a suitable patch which should work around
> these two calls, for MinGW o
On 13/07/07, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm going to wait a touch for rc3 to try and get opinions on the two
recent patches
So I'm going to slip rc3 till Monday
Good.
Can I therefore offer the following patch for consideration.
I had a quick play with Windows-based builds over
I'm going to wait a touch for rc3 to try and get opinions on the two
recent patches:
- forward encoding fix
- netsnmp_assert string compares
So I'm going to slip rc3 till Monday (possibly earlier if it looks like
there is agreement and I can get time away from planned activities this
weekend
