CT_PATCH_ORDER not defined
Heiko Zuerker
heiko@zuerker.org
Sun Dec 19 17:01:00 GMT 2010
Hey,
Quoting "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr>:
> Heiko, All,
>
> On Sunday 19 December 2010 17:01:56 Heiko Zuerker wrote:
>> Quoting "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr>:
>> > On Saturday 18 December 2010 22:31:28 Heiko Zuerker wrote:
>> >> I looked over the code and also couldn't find how or where the
>> >> CT_PATCH_LOCAL_FALLBACK_BUNDLED is handled (I could simply be blind
>> >> too).
[.....]
>> I attached a patch which works.
>
> Did you even test my patch? It Works For Me (TM). ;-)
I did and had issues. I tried it again and it worked this time.
For now I'm going to blame my hangover... ;-)
>> The patch could be made much smaller, but I decided to rather make
>> sure others can read it.
>
> That patch should not be needed, as the existing code does exactly what is
> expected. Besides, the patch has a few shortcomings:
> - it tests for directory existence using -e when it should use -d, which
> means it would believe a patch dir exists, when it is in fact a file (or
> a fifo, or whatever);
> - it uses tabs instead of spaces (benign).
I did the -e on purpose, so symlinks would work too.
I'll be using your patch, since it seems to work fine. Thx!
--
Regards
Heiko Zuerker
http://www.devil-linux.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
More information about the crossgcc
mailing list