Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 14:48:21 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica acconfig.h acenv.h acfreebsd.h acgcc.h acpi.h acpiosxf.h acpixf.h acutils.h dbcmds.c dbxface.c exfldio.c exsystem.c hwsleep.c psparse.c rscreate.c tbget.c utglobal.c Message-ID: <20030501214821.GB16132@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030501164537.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305011310580.87173-100000@root.org> <XFMail.20030501164537.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 04:45:37PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > >> The question: do people think we should try to get another ACPI > >> snapshot in (provided we have someone willing to do it) and thus > >> try to get it fixed the "official" way or are we ok with changing > >> contrib'd code in this case and revert to the vendor branch when > >> we do upgrade sometime after 5.1? > > > > I've been told that it's not possible to put files back on the vendor > > branch after 5.0 since it breaks cvs -D. I would have liked to put a lot > > of the files back on due to the fact that they haven't had local changes > > for quite a few drops. > > > > That being said, I'm willing to spend time fixing the 0228 dist but am not > > going to have enough time to roll another in May. If someone else would > > like to take this up, it would be nice. > > I might be able to do the next one since I've learned a bit more > about how these imports work. I just sent mail to acpi-jp@jp. with two patches. Both address the same problem. The first is large(r) and tested. The second is a one-liner but untested. We'll see... FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030501214821.GB16132>