"Theo de Raadt" <dera...@openbsd.org> writes: >> On 2016-09-26, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <j...@wxcvbn.org> wrote: >> >> >>> So I think that we agree that EISDIR is more useful, and seems safe from >> >>> a portability POV. I've built base and x sets on i386, and ajacoutot >> >>> ran the ports bulk builds. The two offenders in the ports tree were due >> >>> to an unrelated glitch in base libtool which has since been fixed. >> > >> > I haven't received a single test report, which is far from sufficient >> > for such a change. Even though I'm convinced that such a change would >> > be a benefit, I won't push this further. >> >> I think your proposal came at a bad time when there was too much >> other action in the tree. >> >> I've run an amd64 package build with it (because I didn't read the >> above that said that aja had already done so), which worked just >> fine. I don't think we're going to see more of a real-world test >> unless the diff goes into snapshots. >> >> FWIW, I'm in favor of this change. > > Indeed, and the timing is much better. Let's do it, and keep an > eye out for fallout.
Committed. Please let me know if it produces unexpected, nasty side effects. Thanks folks, -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
