which patch to use (Re: assertion failed after a reconfigure)

From: Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm@dont-contact.us>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:21:46 +0200

At 10:00 PM 4/20/99 +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>In article <cistron.371CCBB8.55108945@wserv.com>,


>Hmm, now I've seen 2 versions of this patch. This one, and a previous
>one from David Luyer <luyer@ucs.uwa.edu.au>. David's patch looked the same,
>but it consisted of 2 chunks. The 2nd one also patched the case statement
>around line 2130.
>Which is the correct one .. ?


I can confirm STABLE2 fixes this problem (and more).

Just some side info: I've been mailing with David Luyer about this issue
and he replied like this:

>From: David Luyer <luyer@ucs.uwa.edu.au>
>> PS I'm running the patch of the NLANR site at the moment. Does it make sense
>> to change to your patch. It changes in 2 locations while the other only in
>> one.

>If you request the cache config from the cachemgr you will probably get
>a crash, or maybe just missing lines, with the version currently on
>the NLANR site. If you restrain from doing this, then there's no difference
>between the patch there and my patch.


Marc van Selm
NATO C3 Agency
Communication Systems Division, A-Branch
Tel: +31 70 3142454
E-mail: marc.van.selm@nc3a.nato.int
Private: selm@cistron.nl, selm@het.net, http://www.cistron.nl/~selm
Received on Wed Apr 21 1999 - 02:30:30 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:45:53 MST