Hi, On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:29:06PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 26/05/10 09:32, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > IIRC my major concern with this approach was that this way, the > > original task has to guess what file name will be valid in the new > > task's context... I don't remember though what my conclusion was > > regarding this being better or worse than doing the guessing in exec > > :-( > > The point is that the original task doesn't need to do any guessing, > since it knows the file name. It knows the file name in its *own* namespace; but it might not necessarily be the same in the *new* task... But as Fredrik pointed out, this is probably not a serious problem. > > just copy the new .defs to /include/hurd before building the new > > glibc, which you can then use while building the new Hurd. > > Sounds good for testing, but probably not a good idea for e.g. the > Debian packages. Eh? It's the proper way: build a new glibc package with the new .defs; and then build a new Hurd package with the new glibc. It's always been done like that. There is even a special target for installing the interface definitions in the Hurd Makefile, precisely for this purpose. -antrik-
