At 02:32 AM 3/21/00 -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
> I have just patched my 0.8.3 tree to 0.8.4 using the (tiny)
> patch provided. I was unable to compile 0.8.4 in this way
> because after the patch aclocal.m4 was out of date and
> my system was not strong enough to make it. I got 0.8.4
> to compile by 'touch'ing aclocal.m4.
Did the patch modify "aclocal.m4"?
As I recall, I checked with diff and found no changes.
(Of course, if you've modified the source file in such a way that the
derived file has to be re-generated, i.e. the patch file doesn't
correctly fix the version of the derived file generated from the
modified source file, that will do the wrong thing - but, at this point,
I'm not certain that it's *possible* to have a patch do the right thing
in all cases, so we probably just have to choose who we're going to
shaft, and, given the choice between shafting people who *haven't*
modified the source and are downloading patches because it takes less
time than downloading the entire new release, ...
That me. I am using the sources & diffs as a packet distribution system.
... and shafting people who
have patched versions of the source and aren't using CVS, either
anonymous or non-anonymous, I suspect there are more of the former than
the latter, and they're probably less likely to be happy about the patch
not Just Working, so....)
Thanks for the reply. I think that you are right. Sorry about posting more than
once (if I did). My server went down for the first time in 250 days when a
heater
in the room next door blew a fuse at 1 a.m. (guess which operating system
is involved), and rebooting is something that I do so rarely that I had
forgotten
all the ins and outs, plus I am starting with sore throat and not feeling
too great.
So, I am interested in contributing some of these things:
1) An enhancement to ICMP to report the ports and hosts involved. A Microsoft
system has taken to asking for the DNS address of real.com every few minutes
but can't be bothered to wait for a reply, so my DNS server is constantly
getting
ICMP packets back. This may be a bad idea in the sense that what is needed
is a safe recursive way of dissecting IP within IP.
2) A change to the way that hosts are presented (e.g. 'victoria' rather than
'victoria.leedsnet.com' which is shorted, or even a symbol such as => for
incoming packets.
3) Dissectors for the 920x packets (WAP)
Any thoughts or priorities?
Ben
--
"Developing Office for linux is still not in our plans. Office is not
viable or robust enough for what our users need".
