On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 04:21:14PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 4:08:31 pm Dimitry Andric wrote:
> > On 2009-05-22 21:07, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >> Log:
> > >> some ports erroneously use the existence of AT_FDCWD to check for
> > >> the availability of the *at system call
On Friday 22 May 2009 4:08:31 pm Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2009-05-22 21:07, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> Log:
> >> some ports erroneously use the existence of AT_FDCWD to check for
> >> the availability of the *at system calls so s/AT_FDCWD/AT_FDCWD_notyet/g
> >>
> >> Reported by: Dimitry An
On 2009-05-22 21:07, John Baldwin wrote:
>> Log:
>> some ports erroneously use the existence of AT_FDCWD to check for
>> the availability of the *at system calls so s/AT_FDCWD/AT_FDCWD_notyet/g
>>
>> Reported by: Dimitry Andric
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to just remove the
On Friday 22 May 2009 1:54:03 pm Kip Macy wrote:
> Author: kmacy
> Date: Fri May 22 17:54:02 2009
> New Revision: 192590
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/192590
>
> Log:
> some ports erroneously use the existence of AT_FDCWD to check for
> the availability of the *at system calls s
Author: kmacy
Date: Fri May 22 17:54:02 2009
New Revision: 192590
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/192590
Log:
some ports erroneously use the existence of AT_FDCWD to check for
the availability of the *at system calls so s/AT_FDCWD/AT_FDCWD_notyet/g
Reported by: Dimitry Andric