Long-pending patch for Stratus VOS build

Dave Dykstra dwd at drdykstra.us
Fri Jan 10 19:51:00 EST 2003

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:33:00AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 01:23:45PM -0500, Green, Paul wrote:
> > The following patch still applies cleanly to the current cvs copy of rsync.
> Or did before the most recent Makefile.in changes.  It's easy to merge
> this one problem, though.
> > Does anyone object to having these changes applied now, during the
> > pre-release phase?
> Here are my comments on the changes:
>  + The Makefile.in changes look very safe and needed.
>  + The install-sh change to the dsttmp value looks good.
>  ? I have a question about the portability of the u_FOO -> uFOO_t
>    changes.  The former is the BSD syntax for the unsigned FOO typedefs,
>    and the latter is what, POSIX?  The changes work on Linux, at least.
>    Perhaps we should just make these changes and try it out on the
>    compile farm.
>  + The inet_pton changes look right to make the code consistent.  The
>    only possible glitch might be a system that has a prototype for
>    inet_pton() but not the library code -- if the prototype conflicts,
>    the compile would fail (there are ways to work around this, but let's
>    worry about that if we actually find some weird system with this
>    problem).
> I'd be glad to check in the "+" changes now if Dave thinks now is a good
> time.

Ok, go ahead.  I think it's ok to try out the ? patch on the compile
farm too.  I know that Cygwin also uses $(EXEEXT), but apparently its
make has been more thoroughly modified to handle things automatically
so the Makefile doesn't have to use it as much.

I'm looking at the --copy-unsafe-links problem and it looks very
badly broken.  I was the one who put it in the first place based on a
contributed patch, and now I'm not sure it ever worked.  It's going to
take a while to trace through the history to figure out if it worked once
and if so when it broke.  The fix is not likely to impact much, though,
so I don't think 2.5.6pre1 will need to be held up because of it because
it can go in later.

- Dave

More information about the rsync mailing list