gcc patch broken

John Pierce pubact at cableone.net
Mon Sep 30 15:17:52 PDT 2002


I recieved the same error message as Timothy after the fix.

patching file gcc/Makefile.in
Hunk #1 FAILED at 2153.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file gcc/Makefile.in.rej


Gerard Beekmans wrote:

>On September 29, 2002 04:59 pm, Greg Schafer wrote:
>  
>
>>Ahh, oops! Sorry 'bout that! It makes sense. Somebody else's mailer would
>>be the culprit.
>>    
>>
>
>Hehe just trying to shift blame to somebody else
>
>btw patch fixed, and reinstated in CVS.
>
>  
>
>>Agreed. It's bloody confusing. But at least a few people on this list have
>>publically stated they don't run with the fixed headers and haven't
>>experienced any major problems (me included).
>>    
>>
>
>Including me. The biggest issue I have with it, and I'll repeat what I said 
>yesterday:
>
>I know GCC fixes the X headers, but I never have X installed before I install 
>GCC (on a normal system installation that is). So, the X headers for example 
>will always be "broken" or "non-compliant" or whatever-the-heck is wrong with 
>them but no package has shown compile problems because of it.
>
>The only thing that is stopping me from disabling it is that I don't fully 
>understand the use of it. I couldn't in all conscience disable it without 
>knowing all the ramifications (if any).
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20020930/72478460/attachment.html>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list