| 1 |
On Thursday, October 28, 2010 13:51:05 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/28/10 7:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>> Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: |
| 4 |
> >>>>>> Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the |
| 5 |
> >>>>>> linux |
| 6 |
> >>>>>> headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > the maintainer already has done his due diligence and reviewed the |
| 9 |
> > field. at this point, it is *you* who disagrees with the situation |
| 10 |
> > thus it is *you* who needs to resolve *your* complaint. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Just curious: what are the technical reasons for that? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> My understanding is that one header depends on another for proper |
| 15 |
> compilation but doesn't #include it. Is that correct? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
the Linux guys are very averse to Linux headers pulling in things from the C |
| 18 |
library even though it probably makes sense to do so |
| 19 |
-mike |
Archives