cool, only i issue is open. the changes are working (at least compilation).
-piet
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:40:58 +0100
> Von: "Peter Kalbus" <peter.kalbus@gmx.de>
> An: rpm-devel@rpm5.org
> Betreff: Re: status on porting rpm5 to qnx
> jepp, i think you're right.
>
> i'm just checking out the stuff an compile it
>
> feedback soon...
>
> -piet
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:25:47 -0500
> > Von: Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com>
> > An: rpm-devel@rpm5.org
> > Betreff: Re: status on porting rpm5 to qnx
>
> >
> > On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Peter Kalbus wrote:
> >
> > > cool, semms that we will be done soon.
> > >
> > > what do you mean with "these should be fixed in the last hour. can
> > > you confirm please?" my english is not that good, so i perhaps miss
> > > something.
> >
> > Apologies. My english is rather exotic jargon. Feel free to
> > holler when I stop communicating. I forget sometimes ...
> >
> > I believe all your patches (except DB_PRIVATE) are included
> > on the rpm-5_0 branch and will be in rpm-5.0.1.
> >
> > >
> > > but i think in general the ordering okay, since the DB_PRIVATE
> > > seems to be the most critical point from my point of view.
> > >
> > > but, i didn't know enough about the "__errno_location / stat64 /
> > > _STAT_VER / dirfd / __fxstat64" to see, if this is a critical point.
> > >
> >
> > You will know very quickly if
> > # define __errno_location() (&errno)
> > is the right thing to do on QNX.
> >
> > Try
> > rpm -qpW /path/to/some/non-existent/directory
> > to exercise the fts.c code that uses the define.
> >
> > 73 de Jeff
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
> > Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
> ______________________________________________________________________
> RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
Received on Fri Jan 25 19:10:35 2008