Re: Portability patches vs 1.7.0.2 [5/6]
- From
Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com>
- Date
- Mar 9, 2010, 17:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <40aa078e1003090908o74593fafw59bd992eda2b2b12@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100309161906.GF99172@thor.il.thewrittenword.com>
In the future, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches before sending patches. Patches should be inlined, for one.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Gary V. Vaughan <git@mlists.thewrittenword.com> wrote:
> Actually, I'd like some advice on whether this was a good idea? Was > the change to the code in git-1.7.0 introduced in response to a bug > (latent or reported) that is fixed by the code I reverted in this > patch?
I'm the author of commit 15515b73, who introduced that change (due to a bug). This is something that git-blame could have told you, and you could have CC'ed me. It's pure luck that I had a look at this patch.
Simply doing memcmp will not work, since sockaddr_storage contains both the IP-address and the port, but the port should not be compared.
> If so, what is the right way to fix it (assuming you don't > want to introduce a dependency on gnulib and Automake into git)? >
If ss_family doesn't exist, does that mean that the platform only supports IPv4?
-- Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund