On Jan 22, 2008 5:23 PM, Philippe Gerum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> Philippe, > >>> > >>> what was the idea behind commit #3256 [1]? It breaks the original > >>> behavior of selection adeos-ipipe-2.6.23-... in the presence of 2.6.23.x > >>> - and leaves a bad first impression for beginners (I received such a > >>> notice here...). Was this for the special case > >>> adeos-ipipe-2.6.20.21-i386-1.12-02.patch? But I think the common case > >>> should take precedence over this corner case here. Unless there are more > >>> issues with the original version, I would vote for restoring it. > >>> > >>> Alternatively, we could add a safety belt by trying to apply the patch > >>> with --dry-run first and only continue if this works out without > >>> failures. Can hack this up if it's acceptable. > >> Oh, this check already exists! > >> > >> So let's try this version, which additionally cleans up the related > >> documentation. Catches both 2.6.23* and 2.6.24* for me here, but I may > >> miss some cases (2.4?). > > > > The documentation hunk was nonsense, here is a hopefully better version. > > > > Makes sense and works fine for the kernel/arch combos I've tested so > far. Merged, thanks.
configure.in probably needs a similar fix for the --enable-linux-build
option to work with the -x86 patches.
--
Gilles Chanteperdrix
xeno-x86-configure.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
