From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Apr 11 07:09:49 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA20293
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:09:49 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA20282
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:09:44 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9) id HAA10324; Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:04:37 -0700
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 07:04:37 -0700
Message-Id: <199504111404.HAA10324@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw
CC: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950411172133.27404Q-100000@aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw> (message from Brian Tao on Tue, 11 Apr 1995 17:23:38 +0800 (CST))
Subject: Re: perl5.001 patches needed
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=)
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 *     Ummmm... lemme grab the 5.001+ patches first and rebuild the whole
 * darn thing.  Do I need the vfprintf() patch to compile, or just to run
 * it (since it looks like a run-time problem)?

Okay, thanks...about vfprintf(), didn't it need the patch for
compilation too because perl generates some scripts by itself (or
something like that)?

Satoshi