FW: [Bug 12] gpm-1.19.3 (reply from old maintainer)
jason at tommyk.com
Thu Jul 26 08:30:42 PDT 2001
Alessandro suggests a replacment perl command for the sed one also near the
bottom. I'll keep you guys posted....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rubini at arcana.linux.it [mailto:rubini at arcana.linux.it]On Behalf Of
> Alessandro Rubini
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 05:14
> To: gpm at lists.linux.it
> Cc: jason at tommyk.com
> Subject: Re: FW: [Bug 12] gpm-1.19.3
> Thanks for your report.
> It's interesting to hear once again that people is fixing stuff
> without any coordination with upstream. Actually, that's one of
> the reasons that made me drop the project.
> > There is two real questions I have here. One: Is the change
> > from OPEN_MAX
> > to FOPEN_MAX in special.c a "good thing?"
> I don't know, I'll let the new maintainer reply about this :)
> Obviously, you need to preserve compatibility with previous libc
> version, so
> this must be considered as well.
Was this to fix a glibc-2.2.x or gcc-3.x prob?
> > Two: Should we try and come up with a change to the configure
> > script so that
> > it detects if TeTex is installed and if it's not then will just skip
> > installing the info files (with a warning preferably)
> I don't think so. Since the published tarball already includes
> compiled docs, you don't need to recompile them. There is a bug in the
> doc/Makefile that prevents stuff from being recompiled. I fixed it in
> later packages of mine (that have a similar structure) but this
> happened after I gave over with gpm, so I never backported the
> fix. It's trivial, though, and I'm sure Nico, the new maintainer, will
> find it readily.
I'll wait a bit to see if Nico replys and if he doesn't I'll ask Alessandro
for his patch.
> >> sed s/OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX/ special.c > special.c~ &&
> >> mv special.c~ special.c &&
> why not
> perl -p -i -e s/OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX/ special.c
Seems like a good replacment to me.
| Jason at tommyk.com |
More information about the blfs-book