| 1 |
On Thursday 16 April 2009 19:05:46 Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 10:50 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:59:58 Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > There is also a bug with atom parsing iirc on 32bit platforms. gradm |
| 6 |
> > > > was the test case. Think we need to change from int to long. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > the code is documented as having 64bit limitations for any specific |
| 9 |
> > > component. the last release doesnt have the updated work i did in qatom |
| 10 |
> > > to handle the latest atom spec though, and that includes moving from |
| 11 |
> > > 32bit to 64bit for components ... |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Sounds good. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > > > Maybe another with -rX parsing. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > if you're thinking of the open bug, that's an eprefix specific |
| 18 |
> > > extension. they turned the X in -rX into a floating point #. which |
| 19 |
> > > isnt supported currently. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > I don't think that was it. But I can't recall well enough off the top of |
| 22 |
> > my head the problem that somebody pointed out to me one day on irc while |
| 23 |
> > I was probably too busy. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The error was pointed out to me again today on irc by jmbsvicetto and |
| 26 |
> hoffie, which reminded me of what I had forgot before in this thread. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The problem was/is that qpkg is not handling -rX extensions properly. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
you'll have to be more specific. like i said, -rX extensions are a prefix |
| 31 |
extension and not part of the standard tree and/or spec. i'm not going to |
| 32 |
implement every random thing that someone feels like adding. |
| 33 |
-mike |
Archives