X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A087E2B.7080807@cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:36:11 -0400 From: Ken Brown User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: icu-3.8-5 patches References: <4A01FD39 DOT 8060001 AT cornell DOT edu> <4A08789A DOT 1000804 AT x-ray DOT at> In-Reply-To: <4A08789A.1000804@x-ray.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 5/11/2009 3:12 PM, Reini Urban wrote: > Ken Brown schrieb: >> There is some overlap between the successfully applied patches and >> those in icu-3.8-5.src.patch, but I don't think either set of patches >> contains the other. Can someone clarify for me what the actual source >> patches should be? > > This is easy: > icu-3.8-5.src.patch already contains the two extra patches. Not quite. It doesn't contain the patches to i18n/regexcmp.cpp and i18n/rematch.cpp. That's part of what confused me. Anyway, I think I've got it all sorted out now except for the question I asked in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-05/msg00292.html Thanks. Ken -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/