(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:39:32PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Greg Troxel <gdt_at_ir.bbn.com> writes: > > On 20011-03-11, I sent a patch to adapt coda to modern NetBSD. On > 6.9.5, this patch is still in pkgsrc. Is there some problem with > applying it? (The patch file has a new name, but it's the same bits.) > > (Also, is there anybody here?) Yes someone is here. Haven't checked yet if the patch is applied to CVS, but I have a couple of emails with Coda related patches that were sent to codalist and me privately tagged to be applied. I figured I'd apply them after the CVS -> Git conversion was complete and then release a new Coda version with the state of things. I've scripted the whole conversion process with reposurgeon and stopped trying to 'perfect' the conversion mostly because I seemed to be getting stuck on reposurgeon related bugs. The only remaining step is to validate that the source of the released versions of Coda actually match the tagged commits. I tried to automate the check, but due to subtle differences because of CVS/RCS tag expansions and such it looks like it might have to be done manually by unpacking a released tar and then diffing against a checked out release and reading the diffs to see if any of the differences are significant. > +#if defined(__NetBSD__) && __NetBSD_Version__ >= 499002400 /* 4.99.24 */ > + if (error < 0) > + error = mount("coda", venusRoot, 0, (void *)kernDevice, 256); > + if (error < 0) > + error = mount("cfs", venusRoot, 0, (void *)kernDevice, 256); > +#else I don't like the inline #ifdef style, but I can see that any other solution would just push the ifdef into a worse place. btw. what does the 256 stand for? shouldn't it include a header and use the symbolic name? JanReceived on 2015-01-27 15:58:36