From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24346 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2010 14:36:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 24338 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2010 14:36:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (HELO caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:36:32 +0000 Received: from caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544E110CEF; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Postfix, from userid 20367) id 486F6149E4; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:36:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:36:00 -0000 To: gnu_andrew@member.fsf.org Cc: Matthias Klose , GCC Java , debian-arm@lists.debian.org, debian-alpha@lists.debian.org, distro-pkg-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: icedtea6 build failures on alpha and armel using gcj Message-ID: <20100308143630.GM4307@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <4B894D27.5080804@ubuntu.com> <17c6771e1003011154l556ea301h92e54ff2d457eb6a@mail.gmail.com> <4B94E374.9090700@ubuntu.com> <17c6771e1003080434r30405864v4e362752bc146ef3@mail.gmail.com> <4B94F065.60607@ubuntu.com> <17c6771e1003080444o3991c1bck4ce0b234c684878e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17c6771e1003080444o3991c1bck4ce0b234c684878e@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:44:59PM +0000, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > Ok, I didn't realise it was a hard linked copy. I'll disable that; we > don't want the ecj patches affecting the main tree. Applying a patch to a hardlink copy does not affect other copies. patch creates a new file (hence breaking the hardlink). At least when using the patch command in the default way. Maybe it has an option for working in place on files, but I have never looked for such an option so I have no idea. The linux kernel package has been relying on this for years as have many other packages. Please don't change it since it won't make any difference other than to take more diskspace and time to do a build. -- Len Sorensen