Re: icedtea6 build failures on alpha and armel using gcj
On 8 March 2010 14:36, Lennart Sorensen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:44:59PM +0000, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> Ok, I didn't realise it was a hard linked copy. I'll disable that; we
>> don't want the ecj patches affecting the main tree.
> Applying a patch to a hardlink copy does not affect other copies.
> patch creates a new file (hence breaking the hardlink). At least when
> using the patch command in the default way. Maybe it has an option for
> working in place on files, but I have never looked for such an option
> so I have no idea.
> The linux kernel package has been relying on this for years as have many
> other packages.
> Please don't change it since it won't make any difference other than to
> take more diskspace and time to do a build.
That does make more sense as to what I was seeing; the openjdk-ecj
patches have never affected the main openjdk tree in the past that
> Len Sorensen
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8