Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:19:13 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Locking fcntl changes #2
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20001212202501.025a4b30@pop5.banet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001213131835.11254D@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Peter J. Farley III wrote:

> Yes, I can see now that it would be better to break it up a 
> little.  After I fix all the things Eli  has pointed out, I will put 
> together a script to make some kind of logical separation into multiple 
> packages.

You could simply use your favorite text editor to make several files
from a single one...

> But in any case, all of the 
> diff packages will have to be applied together for all the changes I've 
> made to build and test correctly.

That's not very good: it means that the patches aren't independent.

But I don't see why all of them need to be applied at once.  For
example, if I'm not rebuilding dbgcom.c, I don't need to patch it,
right?  And the same is true for _dosexterr: unless someone wants to
build and run the tests for the new fcntl, they don't need _dosexterr,
since only the test programs call it, right?