From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 27 06:34:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA25D16A4CE for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ida.interface-business.de (ida.interface-business.de [193.101.57.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC0143D31 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from j@ida.interface-business.de) Received: by ida.interface-business.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id 17CC17A88; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:34:26 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:34:25 +0200 From: Joerg Wunsch To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040527153425.A19213@ida.interface-business.de> References: <200405131620.i4DGKHxp029525@beast.csl.sri.com> <20040513224237.GC982@timesink.dyndns.org> <20040514172445.F74135@ida.interface-business.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20040514172445.F74135@ida.interface-business.de>; from j@ida.interface-business.de on Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:24:45PM +0200 X-Phone: +49-351-31809-14 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Organization: interface systems GmbH, Dresden Subject: Re: 5.2.1p6, Sparc64 && ypwhich X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Joerg Wunsch List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 13:34:47 -0000 As Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Thomas Moestl wrote: > > > Can you please test the attached patch (it corrects some types in > > , taken from the NetBSD version and the > > rpcgen-generated definitions)? > I'm not yet through with a full `make', just reinstalled > /usr/include, rebuilt and -installed the libs, and rebuilt and > -installed ypwhich, but that indicates it really fixes the problem. Just curious about the state, I see that a cvs update still marks this file as being locally changed, so it obviously has not yet been committed yet. Any reaons for this? -- J"org Wunsch Unix support engineer joerg_wunsch@interface-systems.de http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/