Re: busybox triggers a possible bug in make-3.81rc1 and 3.81beta4

2006-03-10 Thread Bernhard Fischer
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 06:19:37PM -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote: >%% Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >It almost seems like we need to move the stem from being a per-target >value to being a per-prerequisite value, since it can change depending >on which prerequisites

busybox triggers a possible bug in make-3.81rc1 and 3.81beta4

2006-03-10 Thread Bernhard Fischer
Hi, busybox is triggering a bug in make-3.81rc1. This bug is at least also existing in make-3.81beta4 (from debian). current busybox-svn does provoke this with make-3.81beta4, 3.81rc1 and cvs-HEAD: make: *** No rule to make target `/scratch/src/busybox/e2fsprogs/blkid/blkid/blkid_getsize.c', nee

Re: svn 14407 broke the repository.

2006-03-07 Thread Bernhard Fischer
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 09:18:20AM -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote: >%% Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > rl> P.S. Either way it still tries to run the "h;y/[a-z]/[A-Z]/" > rl> thing through /bin/sh instead of sed. This doesn't appear to be a > rl> sed problem, but a make problem. > >I'll

Re: svn 14407 broke the repository.

2006-03-04 Thread Bernhard Fischer
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 04:36:07PM -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote: >%% Bernhard Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > bf> I *think* that i'm tripping a bug in "my" make-3.81b4 version. > bf> Please reread the bug with-make-and-e2fsprogs mail ยน) or just &g

Re: svn 14407 broke the repository.

2006-03-04 Thread Bernhard Fischer
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:32:53PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >On Thursday 02 March 2006 1:18 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote: >> >Not happy... >> >> Missing dependency of applets/applets.o vs. .config. >> Fixed in r14431. > >Yup, that's fixed. Thanks. :) > &

Re: svn 14407 broke the repository.

2006-03-03 Thread Bernhard Fischer
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 05:36:45PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >On Thursday 02 March 2006 3:51 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:32:53PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> >On Thursday 02 March 2006 1:18 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote: >> >> >No