On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Hold up... am I not reading something correctly? Was the binutils > change that caused the problem ever reverted?
IIRC, it was a gcc change that caused the problem. Although, there may have been a binutils work around. > If not, the problem will still exist. It may, but... > I never heard that the change was reverted, I don't think it was, but... > so I'm wondering why binutils being up to date matters at all. See speculation about binutils work around above. Did you try updating? But... > IIRC, with the binutils change in place, gcc change > the only way to address the issue would be to change nedit to no longer > do relocs in now-non-writable data, which would probably take a week. Here may be where the misunderstanding lies. That statement may be true, but it doesn't matter because it would only come into play if/when nedit was updated (ie. recompiled with gcc >= 3.3.1). This is not necessary because of, or to use the new lesstif. This is what I tested, but may not be what you tested. Hence our differing results. > I seem to recall that I did everything you asked and it had some new > problem (which I think was a crash on opening a file, or some such) Unfortunately, as I stated before, you never reported this to me, so I am unable to reproduce or debug it. > Look, the history doesn't matter. I'm not really trying to reproduce history, just to clarify enough to move forward since our recollections seem to differ greatly. > The point here is that I won't let someone release a version of lesstif > that breaks nedit... Fine, please define how to break nedit and I'll make sure it doesn't happen. Until we have a confirmed bug that is reproducible, you can't expect me to go beyond a simple does nedit work to open, edit, and save files type of test can you? > now, if you're sure that nedit works just fine with your new lesstif > build, No one really can be, but it basically does... > then that's the end of the story, and we can stop trying to resurrect a > conversation history. But, I mentioned that I would *like* you to do > one more thing, which is to install nedit and lesstif on a machine that > has no other modifications from you I don't understand what this means. Could you clarify what "no other modifications from me" means? I have made no modifications to the released nedit or to your lesstif-0.94.4 source package. They just work (TM). > and just make sure that nedit still works and that you can actually open > files; this might take 15 minutes, which is less time then we've spent > talking about it. Until I know what you mean by the above, I can't say I have done it. But, IWJFFM. > If it works, fine, proceed... I had planned to. I have maybe just found web space to post packages, but there is a fairly small 5M-10M limit. We'll see if lesstif fits... If anyone knows of a free site suitable for such, please let me know (via private email if you so desire). I don't remember anyone posting one that didn't have significant issues with package names, space, etc. > if it doesn't work, fine, but proceed with caution and don't post a new > 'curr' release of lesstif until you've fixed the problem with nedit. As soon as someone can identify a problem with nedit... > Deal? Agreed. I'll be glad to leave my new version in test for a month or so to see if anything turns up. But, given the standard Cygwin philosophy for testing, I expect nothing will until it goes curr ;-). -- Brian Ford Senior Realtime Software Engineer VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems FlightSafety International the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained pilot...
