|
From: Oliver J. <oli...@mo...> - 2004-01-12 16:15:22
Attachments:
e2fsprogs.diff
e2fsprogs-1.34-SCSI_MAJOR.patch.bz2
|
e2fsprogs didnt compile ... problem with defines |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-01-12 21:00:56
|
Hi Oliver!
Oliver Jehle wrote on 12.01.2004 17:15 MET:
> e2fsprogs didnt compile ... problem with defines
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --- e2fsprogs-old/misc/util.c Sat May 3 15:46:47 2003
> +++ e2fsprogs-1.34/misc/util.c Tue Sep 30 06:56:11 2003
> @@ -108,13 +108,8 @@
> #define MAJOR(dev) ((dev)>>8)
> #define MINOR(dev) ((dev) & 0xff)
> #endif
> -#ifndef SCSI_BLK_MAJOR
> -#define SCSI_BLK_MAJOR(M) ((M) == SCSI_DISK_MAJOR || (M) == SCSI_CDROM_MAJOR)
> -#endif
> - if (((MAJOR(s.st_rdev) == HD_MAJOR &&
> - MINOR(s.st_rdev)%64 == 0) ||
> - (SCSI_BLK_MAJOR(MAJOR(s.st_rdev)) &&
> - MINOR(s.st_rdev)%16 == 0))) {
> + if (MAJOR(s.st_rdev) == HD_MAJOR &&
> + MINOR(s.st_rdev)%64 == 0) {
> printf(_("%s is entire device, not just one partition!\n"),
> device);
> proceed_question();
Can you please give more background info about this problem. I think
such a patch might make more troubles in the long run as it looks
very cosmetic to me.
Could you please try to get a more official patch for that problem?
--
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock
____________________________________________________________________
Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock
URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl...
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
From: Oliver J. <oli...@mo...> - 2004-01-13 06:04:13
|
The problem was, that SCSI_DISK_MAJOR didn't exists any more...
and when you look on it... but i will look if i find an official
patch of it...
if you look what it does, its only a check if its the full device
or not... and the pach removes the check if its a disk or cdrom, now it
works for all scsi devices.. have fun to use e2fs on a tape ;-)
try to compile to original packages with includes 2.6 and you will see
the problem...
there are other packages make also a lot of problems... because they
are not ported to 2.6 and the includes have changed....
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 22:00, Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> Hi Oliver!
>
> Oliver Jehle wrote on 12.01.2004 17:15 MET:
> > e2fsprogs didnt compile ... problem with defines
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --- e2fsprogs-old/misc/util.c Sat May 3 15:46:47 2003
> > +++ e2fsprogs-1.34/misc/util.c Tue Sep 30 06:56:11 2003
> > @@ -108,13 +108,8 @@
> > #define MAJOR(dev) ((dev)>>8)
> > #define MINOR(dev) ((dev) & 0xff)
> > #endif
> > -#ifndef SCSI_BLK_MAJOR
> > -#define SCSI_BLK_MAJOR(M) ((M) == SCSI_DISK_MAJOR || (M) == SCSI_CDROM_MAJOR)
> > -#endif
> > - if (((MAJOR(s.st_rdev) == HD_MAJOR &&
> > - MINOR(s.st_rdev)%64 == 0) ||
> > - (SCSI_BLK_MAJOR(MAJOR(s.st_rdev)) &&
> > - MINOR(s.st_rdev)%16 == 0))) {
> > + if (MAJOR(s.st_rdev) == HD_MAJOR &&
> > + MINOR(s.st_rdev)%64 == 0) {
> > printf(_("%s is entire device, not just one partition!\n"),
> > device);
> > proceed_question();
>
> Can you please give more background info about this problem. I think
> such a patch might make more troubles in the long run as it looks
> very cosmetic to me.
>
> Could you please try to get a more official patch for that problem?
|
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-01-13 02:26:55
|
Friedrich Lobenstock wrote: > Can you please give more background info about this problem. I think > such a patch might make more troubles in the long run as it looks > very cosmetic to me. > > Could you please try to get a more official patch for that problem? > It's not a big deal, there's a 1.35 testing version available, which compiles just fine. I will upload all the changes shortly. Heiko |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2004-01-13 02:29:46
|
Heiko Zuerker wrote on 13.01.2004 03:23 MET: > Friedrich Lobenstock wrote: > >> Can you please give more background info about this problem. I think >> such a patch might make more troubles in the long run as it looks >> very cosmetic to me. >> >> Could you please try to get a more official patch for that problem? >> > > > It's not a big deal, there's a 1.35 testing version available, which > compiles just fine. Hopefully with 2.4 too. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-01-13 02:46:35
|
Friedrich Lobenstock wrote: > Heiko Zuerker wrote on 13.01.2004 03:23 MET: > >> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote: >> >>> Can you please give more background info about this problem. I think >>> such a patch might make more troubles in the long run as it looks >>> very cosmetic to me. >>> >>> Could you please try to get a more official patch for that problem? >>> >> >> >> It's not a big deal, there's a 1.35 testing version available, which >> compiles just fine. > > > Hopefully with 2.4 too. I can tell you tomorrow. I need to recompile everything anyway, to see if I broke anything. Heiko |
|
From: Oliver J. <oli...@mo...> - 2004-01-13 07:56:12
|
thats better then patching the old one .-) thx.. On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 03:23, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Friedrich Lobenstock wrote: > > > Can you please give more background info about this problem. I think > > such a patch might make more troubles in the long run as it looks > > very cosmetic to me. > > > > Could you please try to get a more official patch for that problem? > > > > > It's not a big deal, there's a 1.35 testing version available, which > compiles just fine. > > I will upload all the changes shortly. > > Heiko > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. > Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering > advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. > Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop |