[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed
From: |
Hal Murray |
Subject: |
Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed. |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:38:48 -0800 |
address@hidden said:
> That's very odd. Are my eyes deceiving me or are those sentences identical
> by pairs except for checksums?
No, there is a difference. For example:
> -$GPZDA,090614.00,11,06,2005,00,00*6D
> +$GPZDA,080614.00,11,06,2005,00,00*6C
It's a 9 vs 8 in 090614.00 vs 080614.00
>> Compiles and checks for me on Debian and Ubuntu.
> So the test failure is specific to Fedora?
I haven't seen that error on a non-Fedora box.
I get the same error on multiple runs.
I don't get that error on a really old Fedora box.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
- Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., (continued)
- Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., Gary E. Miller, 2015/01/14
- Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., Michael Tatarinov, 2015/01/14
- Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., Harlan Stenn, 2015/01/14
- Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., Gary E. Miller, 2015/01/14
- Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., Bernd Zeimetz, 2015/01/17
Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., Eric S. Raymond, 2015/01/13
Re: [gpsd-dev] Refactor the way NTP shared memory segments are addressed., Hal Murray, 2015/01/14