From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi  Fri Aug 28 11:52:58 2009
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [MiNT] stat() and blocks
From: Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>
To: Vincent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rivi=E8re?= <vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr>
Cc: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
In-Reply-To: <4A97FA27.1090004@freesbee.fr>
References: <4A95B430.9080304@freesbee.fr>
	 <8cf5b8cc0908270241p4ebc59d8yc8b2b9380972cf90@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A969DEF.7000106@freesbee.fr>
	 <1251385614.19057.51.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk>
	 <4A979AFC.3020405@freesbee.fr>
	 <1251450405.19057.79.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk>
	 <1251472691.19057.105.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk>
	 <4A97FA27.1090004@freesbee.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:45:03 +0100
Message-Id: <1251474304.19057.111.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
X-original-sender: alanh@fairlite.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-List-ID: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id n7SFqvOn005817

On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 17:39 +0200, Vincent Rivière wrote:
> Alan Hourihane a écrit :
> > There's a freemint tarball with the latest binaries from the
> > freemint-enhancements branch and mintlib binaries too from CVS today.
> > 
> > Please test, and offer any feedback.
> 
> Thanks Alan, I've just put your new kernel inside my minimal MiNT/ARAnyM 
> setup (no modules, console only, hostfs only), and it works :-)
> 
> Even my recently compiled "du" utility works now (without recompiling 
> anything). And I can say that the number of blocks displayed is wrong, 
> so we really have to do the fix proposed in the first message of this 
> thread.

O.k. Do you have a patch ?

Alan.


