On 14 July 2010 г. 03:22:54 Stuart Henderson wrote:
> it would be nice if another ports hacker could read over this
> and see if I missed anything important.. the in-tree version only
> generates PF rules suitable for 4.6, i.e. pre nat-to, so we could
> really do with getting this update in.
>
> compared to your tarballs this diff:
>
> <...>
>
> - fixes regression tests (libfwbuilder ok, fwbuilder crashes in
> generatedScriptTestsLinux)
Didn't for me, but another one Linux-specific test is failing. Looking
into it now.
> - we don't use debug flavours for things where it's enough
> to do something like "make package INSTALL_STRIP= DEBUG='-O0 -g'"
Cool trick, thanks. :) And it gave me some ideas about
integrating "debug" flavors...
> (note: to produce a diff with changed files, you can cvs add/rm files
> <but not directories> against an anoncvs server and do 'cvs diff -uNp'
> this is generally preferred over tarballs for an update to an existing
> port).
Yes, I know. This time changes were huge enough, so I preferred to roll
tarballs...
So I tested the updated diff, it more or less works for me. I'll try to
resolve regressions, and then try to push patches upstream.
--
Best wishes,
Vadim Zhukov
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
