On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:07:41PM -0400, Kenneth J. Davis wrote:
>
> Albert Chin wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:42:55PM -0400, Kenneth J. Davis wrote:
> >
> >>Albert Chin wrote:
> ...
> >Ok, then ignore. Ditto for the SCANDIR_CONST patch. We cannot test the
> >alternate build systems.
>
> I didn't mean to sound harsh; your patches look good as far as their
> intended result. I just wanted to make sure before they are
> committed (and please note, I'm not and never said they shouldn't
> be) and break my build, that the issue of alternate build methods is
> at least considered.
That's ok. Don't worry about it. I agree with your initial conclusion.
One possible workaround is:
#ifndef ICONV_CONST
... current code ...
#endif
Ditto for SCANDIR_CONST.
-- albert chin (china@thewrittenword.com)Received on Tue Jul 12 20:19:05 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 12 2005 - 20:19:05 CEST