bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 to run


From: Kelly F. Hickel
Subject: Re: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 to run
Date: 3 Oct 2003 08:02:39 -0700

OK, I've got this all set, I've verified that the unmodified sources
don't work on NSK, and that my modification does.  "make check" fails
with:

make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/local/cvs/cvs-1.11.6_nsk/src'
/bin/sh ./sanity.sh `pwd`/cvs
This test should produce no other output than this message, and a
final "OK".
(Note that the test can take an hour or more to run and periodically
stops
for as long as one minute.  Do not assume there is a problem just
because
nothing seems to happen for a long time.)


FAIL: basica-6.2
make[2]: *** [localcheck] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/cvs/cvs-1.11.6_nsk/src'
make[1]: *** [check-am] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/cvs/cvs-1.11.6_nsk/src'
make: *** [check-recursive] Error 1
/usr/local/cvs/cvs-1.11.6_nsk:           

How much does this matter?   I still haven't gotten any good feeling
from someone who actually has the power to put my patches into the
source that they're interested in doing so....

I'm about to upgrade the OS to the latest version, so I want to wait
any make sure that the unmodified source still has problems on the
latest version, then I'll be ready to send out the (relatively small)
patch.

-Kelly


"Kelly F. Hickel" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:<address@hidden>...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Larry Jones [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 6:58 PM
> > To: Kelly F. Hickel
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs
>  1.11.6
> > to run
> > 
> > Kelly F. Hickel writes:
> > >
> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > 
> > Please do not send MIME and/or HTML encrypted messages to the list.
> > Plain text only, PLEASE!
> 
> Sorry about that, I just reloaded that system and forgot to change the
> default.
> 
> > 
> > >             So, what's the story?  Any interest in a port for a
>  weird
> > > system that most people won't use, or not?  The bulk of the changes
>  have
> > > to do with detecting the OS and dealing with the charming "feature"
>  that
> > > read/write don't (seem) to work with buffers > 52k bytes...........
> > 
> > What, exactly, does "don't (seems) to work" mean?  Do they simply
>  return
> > less than the requested length?  Do they return -1 without reading or
> > writing anything?  Or do they do something really perverse?  52kB is
>  an
> > interesting number since it's close to 64k, but not that close.  It
> > isn't a 16-bit environment, is it?
> 
> It's been a couple of years since I really looked into this, read and
> write return -1, I don't remember the errno value.  I've recently come
> across some information that leads me to believe that the size might be
> dependant upon the host OS (guardian) settings, but I haven't been able
> to prove it, and this is the default, anyway.
> 
> > 
> > -Larry Jones
> > 
> > I don't see why some people even HAVE cars. -- Calvin
> 
> -Kelly


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]