From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200101050507.GAA12342@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Making getdinfo changes prerequisite for locking fcntl changes
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010102200050.00a50530@pop5.banet.net> from "Peter J. Farley III" at "Jan 2, 2001 08:17:06 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 06:07:51 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

According to Peter J. Farley III:
> Way back in June last year, Mark E. posted a set of getdinfo changes, 
> see his original note here:
> 
> http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/2000/06/18/17:15:33
> 
> I have included the first piece of his changes, the 
> include/libc/getdinfo.h file, in my locking fcntl changes.  To keep 
> only that file and not Mark's other changes seems very wrong, 
> especially since his full set of changes eliminates seven duplications 
> of the constants now located in the new header (all duplicates are in 
> the src/libc/posix/termios directory).
> 
> I propose to remove the include/libc/getdinfo.h file from my locking 
> fcntl changes and specify Mark's changes as a prerequisite to 
> mine.  Alternatively, for consistancy I would be willing to re-submit 
> Mark's changes in the same format as my fcntl changes (diff -u) if that 
> is more preferable or easier for anyone.
> 
> Comments?

I've got the patch. If nobody objects I'll apply it after verifying
libc still compiles.


Right,

						MartinS