On Oct 31, 2010, at 13:07, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 11:29 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > >> Right, but the problem is that my util-macros contain a patchset from >> February that never got committed (and I never noticed they didn't get >> committed because I was still using your patchset). This change that >> I've suggested is essentially doing what we agreed upon back in >> February (Feb 23 - Feb 27 on xorg-devel) >> > > So an accident occurred while creating the xserver tarball. This can be > fixed without any patch. > I would recommend rolling a new tarball with the 1.10 version of > util-macros (from the published tarballs).
Yes. That is what I intend to do, but I want to get in one regression fix first which I'm asking someone to verify first. I intend to have out 1.9.2 with the correct util-macros tomorrow. > It is crucial that the > published tarball can be reproduced by anyone from git and does not > contain any private fix, intended or accidental. I agree. > I would like to keep the two issues separate for the sake of clarity. I > completely agree that this option should have never been included in > CWARNFLAGS. However, not everyone agrees the code should be compiled > without it. We could resume the discussion on this topic on it's own > thread, as it is a complex issue. Ok, I'll start a new thread for that. --Jeremy _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
