On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:51:19AM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Done. A grand total of three ports failed: sysutils/bacula,
> misc/findutils, net/rsync. All fixed in the respective port and/or
> by matthew's additional work.
>
> As far as ports are concerned, the diff collection to
> - e
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Now that all of the new AT_* flags are supported, it's okay to expose
> > openat(2), etc. in libc.
> >
> > This will need at least a minor libc bump (not included below). I
> > know martynas@ has a major bump planned for libc
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Christian Weisgerber
wrote:
> POSIX says utimensat() should be declared in .
Yep, that's fixed in my local tree too. (Same goes for futimens(2) in
my UTIME_* diff that I also mailed out.)
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Index: include/unistd.h
> ===
> RCS file: /home/mdempsky/anoncvs/cvs/src/include/unistd.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.64
> diff -u -p -r1.64 unistd.h
> --- include/unistd.h 3 Jul 2011 18:51:01 - 1.64
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:45:00PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> The test does
>
> ln -s conftest.no-such conftest.dangle
>
> and then runs this program:
>
> --->
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> int
> main ()
> {
> return (fchownat (AT_FDCWD,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>
>> Now that all of the new AT_* flags are supported, it's okay to expose
>> openat(2), etc. in libc.
>
> ... revealing that the gnulib configure tests think that our
> fchownat() is bro
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Now that all of the new AT_* flags are supported, it's okay to expose
> openat(2), etc. in libc.
... revealing that the gnulib configure tests think that our
fchownat() is broken.
The test does
ln -s conftest.no-such conftest.dangle
and then runs t
On 2011/07/08 03:51, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2011/07/08 01:53, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> >> Now that all of the new AT_* flags are supported, it's okay to expose
> >> openat(2), etc. in libc.
> >
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2011/07/08 01:53, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>> Now that all of the new AT_* flags are supported, it's okay to expose
>> openat(2), etc. in libc.
>>
>> This will need at least a minor libc bump (not included
On 2011/07/08 01:53, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Now that all of the new AT_* flags are supported, it's okay to expose
> openat(2), etc. in libc.
>
> This will need at least a minor libc bump (not included below). I
> know martynas@ has a major bump planned for libc, so I figure
Now that all of the new AT_* flags are supported, it's okay to expose
openat(2), etc. in libc.
This will need at least a minor libc bump (not included below). I
know martynas@ has a major bump planned for libc, so I figure it makes
sense to either go before that or ride the same bump. Opi
11 matches
Mail list logo
