Perhaps now is a good time to commit this patch which updates the included
popt to version 1.7. This has been tested on FreeBSD and Solaris.
http://www.catnook.com/patches/rsync-popt-1.7.diff
Comments?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Sunnyvale, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
jos at catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require
'std/disclaimer'
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:30:50AM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:> Perhaps now is a good time to commit this patch which updates the > included popt to version 1.7.I'd certainly agree with that. ..wayne..
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:30:50AM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:> Perhaps now is a good time to commit this patch which updates the included > popt to version 1.7. This has been tested on FreeBSD and Solaris. > > http://www.catnook.com/patches/rsync-popt-1.7.diff > > Comments?I think you have the assent of the developers to do so. Two Questions: Are the popt related comments in INSTALL up-to-date? Why is there a popt-1.2 directory? -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt
jw schultz wrote:> OK. With that widespread a usage it cannot not be in the > major dists and is confirmed to be in cygwin. Lets drop > popt source. One less bit of foreign code to keep in sync > and port patches for.
[I'm assuming Lapo meant to send this to the list. -- Max.] Lapo Luchini wrote:> Max Bowsher wrote: > >> Granted, these are mainly compilation fixes for popt itself, but they >> presumably indicate systems which often do not have a system popt. >> > Wouldn't the "best" solution to propose this patch to the official popt, > ni case they are really "general" and "userful"? > This would save both space and compatibility.