Re: enough

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> >/bin/ld: Unsatisfied symbols:
> >   utimes (code)
> >
> >Otherwise, looks great. And I'm not too bitter about the "None of 
> >Alexei's code is left" comment, either.
> 
> Sigh. I started off using utime() and then switched to utimes() because
> I thought it would be more portable.
> 
> Can I call for a straw poll on this list? Does your system have utime()
> and does it have utimes()?

The BSD systems I am using choose utime() and indicate that utime() is
a Posix thingy.


> >>  99.bind.patch          09-Feb-96 11:17    11K
> >
> >-1: Sorry, but after all the other patches, this one fails. Time for a
> >    rewrite?
> 
> I think this veto is out of order; just because you didn't test the
> patch, it does mean that you have to veto it.
> 
> In fact, the patch should apply cleanly against the 1.0.2 distribution,
> so you _can_ test it if you want to.

There were major conflicts with the NeXT socket opt patches that I think
we have resolved. None of the systems I have access to, (excepting HPUX
which I have not tried) don't have a problem with the NeXT format.
Making those changes in the make_sock() function that your 99 introduces
should make everything happy.

With exception of the problems reported by Brian with regard to 99 and
imagemaps, appears to work just fine.