<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jan Engelhardt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jengelh@inai.de" target="_blank">jengelh@inai.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Thursday 2012-10-04 01:16, Anand Avati wrote:<br>
>On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Jeff Darcy <<a href="mailto:jdarcy@redhat.com">jdarcy@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>>(9) no-op lines in rdma<br>
>>This removes lines that are clearly intended as continuations of the<br>
>>previous<br>
>>one, which is simply incorrect.<br>
><br>
>I had a look at that patch again. Removing the two lines is the right thing<br>
>to do. It is not intended to be a continuation of the previous line.<br>
>noinst_HEADERS explicitly specifies header files to be included into a 'make<br>
>dist' tarball, which are otherwise not getting included by default if they<br>
>were getting installed into /usr/include (hence "noinst").<br>
<br>
</div></div>What sort of seemed to go out of view also was that the two lines<br>
removed are compiler flags - which don't make sense for _HEADERS, since<br>
they are not files ;-)<br>
</blockquote></div><br><div>That's what I implied.</div>