From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Apr 19 18:21:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BF837B43C for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:21:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jim@siteplus.net) Received: from veager.siteplus.net ([65.14.122.116]) by femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20010420011818.GFQJ24660.femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com@veager.siteplus.net>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:18:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:21:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Weeks To: Kris Kennaway Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: No go with glob.3.x.patch In-Reply-To: <20010419181109.A57224@xor.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote: > What version of FreeBSD? FreeBSD 3.5-STABLE Wed Jan 31 > Did you already apply the old patch? If so, you should have backed it > out with patch -R before applying the new one. Started clean. > > However, when comparing libexec/ftpd/ftpd.c with libexec/ftpd/ftpd.c.rej, > > we find that the patch has been applied as is evidenced bellow. > > Only the first hunk, the second hunk failed (as noted above) As I understand it, only the failed chunk would have been sent to libexec/ftpd/ftpd.c.rej? > These are warnings, not errors (well, not sure what the partial > message was on the first line, it might have been an error). If you > built with make -j this can obscure the relation of the compiler > output to what is actually causing the error message. I didn't use -j. I did try make all, and simply make. Jim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message