> Thus spake Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
> > darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
> > > But it worked before. In fact it still works on another system with
> > > an earlier compile.
> >
> > "Works" for me, using a cvs update from yesterday morning (the morning
> > after the BETA 2 freeze), modulo the fact that someone committed
> > changes to #ifdef out ("#ifdef BAD") all the calls to the actual inet
> > parser routines, effectively causing all data to be rejected. Since
>
> That's odd. I know that Bruce #ifdef'd out the core of the _new_
> functions I sent in but I didn't realize that he took the existing
> ones out too.
>
> > we had an implementation that actually worked, and the changes that we
> > wanted to make were compatible with currently stored data, it would
> > have been smarter to leave it working until the changes were ready to
> > be committed. It's better to be able to keep testing something that
> > doesn't have all the wanted functionality than to disable it until an
> > unknown time in the future! :-)
>
> Yes, I agree. Bruce, can we put the inet_in and inet_out functions
> back the way they were?
>
> However, I have put all the code back in locally for testing so that
> isn't why mine isn't working. I'll try with today's sup.
I just ifdef'ed out the calls to the non-existant functions. That is
all.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026