On 04/22/2011 07:10 AM, Sandon Van Ness wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 04:57 AM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> On 04/22/2011 02:55 AM, Sandon Van Ness wrote:
>>> It didn't appear to be fixed on my machine so I am guessing the same
>>> will be for you but definitely curious to here what happens.
>> Are you sure you tested the patch? The fsck output indicates that
>> fsck.jfs was built on March 4, but I sent the patch on March 7.
> Pretty darn sure. That date is *not* the compile date but instead just
> the date that is listed in the source:
> ./include/jfs_version.h:#define JFSUTILS_DATE "04-Mar-2011"
Doh! You're right. I was thinking it was something it got at compile time.
> I verified my source had the patch and my binary modification time shows
> 1 minute after the edit time of the file from the patch:
> root@dekabutsu: 05:07 AM :~/jfsutils-1.1.15# ls -lsah ./libfs/log_map.c
> 60K -rw-r--r-- 1 root 1000 57K 2011-03-16 07:50 ./libfs/log_map.c
> root@dekabutsu: 05:07 AM :~/jfsutils-1.1.15# ls -lsah /sbin/fsck.jfs
> 1000K -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 996K 2011-03-16 07:51 /sbin/fsck.jfs
> root@dekabutsu: 05:07 AM :~/jfsutils-1.1.15#
> so I would have to say yes, I am about 98% sure that I did have the
> patch applied properly.
Yeah, I trust you, now that you pointed out the hard-coded date in the
I'll have to try to recreate the problem again and see what else needs