On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Finn Thain dixit: > > >I did some tests, and it seems that you can avoid the problem with > >libc_MIN_KERNEL_SUPPORTED = 2.6.16 > > Ouch, that wouldn’t be enough to trigger the mentioned preinst security > checks.
I don't follow. Sanity checks aren't relevant. > > >Higher minimum versions don't work without patching. > > What kind of patching would that be? The patch fixes the build failure you saw. Please see the link I sent earlier in the thread. The build failure happens when backward compatibility code is turned off (that's what increasing min. kernel supported does). > > >yet. I never got around to sending it. > > You have already something? Do you think it would be possible to get the > Debian eglibc maintainers to include it (what’s their policy, similar to > the Linux maintainers’ or more open)? I don't know what the Linux maintainers' policy is, nor the eglibc maintainers policy. And it doesn't really matter, since you can build eglibc if you change m68k.mk like this (no more than this is needed): libc_MIN_KERNEL_SUPPORTED = 2.6.16 libc_add-ons = ports nptl $(add-ons) You don't need to patch anything. If the patch gets merged then it would be possible to increase 2.6.16 to 2.6.32, which is desirable (to me) but not necessary. Finn
