[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: 2.6.23 alpha unistd.h changes
- From: Oliver Falk <oliver linux-kernel at>
- To: Adrian Bunk <bunk kernel org>
- Cc: ac-admin lists anotherbloody com, axp-list redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, Jay Estabrook <jay estabrook hp com>
- Subject: Re: 2.6.23 alpha unistd.h changes
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:47:31 +0200
On 09/17/2007 11:41 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> Hi!
>
> Hi Oliver!
>
>> ...
>> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
>> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
>> Debian folks may speak up now!), I would suggest to use the same
>> 'ordering' of the syscalls upstream and add the new syscalls that we had
>> not in place, but are now upstream to the end of our 'old' list.
>> ...
>
> I just checked:
>
> It seems Debian didn't patch them into the kernel at all, and since two
> months Debian unstable ships kernel 2.6.22 with the upstream syscall
> numbers.
That's possible a problem. Right. Someone with contacts to Debian here?
If Debian hasn't rebuilt glibc against the new headers, we could change
it without problems.
If not, we have a problem on AC... Anyone with a glibc that was compiled
against our patched unistd.h (so including the new syscall numbers),
will not be able to upgrade the kernel, but also needs to upgrade glibc
and then *must* reboot :-(
Best,
Oliver
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]