[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 to run
From: |
Kelly F. Hickel |
Subject: |
RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 to run |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:52:19 -0500 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Jones [mailto:lawrence.jones@eds.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 6:58 PM
> To: Kelly F. Hickel
> Cc: bug-cvs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs
1.11.6
> to run
>
> Kelly F. Hickel writes:
> >
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> Please do not send MIME and/or HTML encrypted messages to the list.
> Plain text only, PLEASE!
Sorry about that, I just reloaded that system and forgot to change the
default.
>
> > So, what's the story? Any interest in a port for a
weird
> > system that most people won't use, or not? The bulk of the changes
have
> > to do with detecting the OS and dealing with the charming "feature"
that
> > read/write don't (seem) to work with buffers > 52k bytes...........
>
> What, exactly, does "don't (seems) to work" mean? Do they simply
return
> less than the requested length? Do they return -1 without reading or
> writing anything? Or do they do something really perverse? 52kB is
an
> interesting number since it's close to 64k, but not that close. It
> isn't a 16-bit environment, is it?
It's been a couple of years since I really looked into this, read and
write return -1, I don't remember the errno value. I've recently come
across some information that leads me to believe that the size might be
dependant upon the host OS (guardian) settings, but I haven't been able
to prove it, and this is the default, anyway.
>
> -Larry Jones
>
> I don't see why some people even HAVE cars. -- Calvin
-Kelly
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 to run,
Kelly F. Hickel <=