Hi! On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 20:03:46 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > On 25/08/14 19:07, Christoph Egger wrote: > > Indeed it works! And I'm running that 10.1 kernel just right now! As > > soon as some solution is committed I can upload it to experimental (or > > should I just go ahead and patch -glue?) > > I just confirmed the freebsd-glue problem happens building kfreebsd-10 > 10.0 in sid. > > Do you think it's okay to drop those definitions from freebsd-glue and > use libbsd's? Even though they're different? I'm not sure, and hope > Guillem or someone else can explain it.
Sorry about this, I was aware of the conflicting functions when they got added to freebsd-glue, but completely forgot about them few days afterwards. In any case the conflicting functions in freebsd-glue were not usable anyway as they use the fpos_t struct which cannot be manipulated, and does not get automatically converted into the correct type off_t. So those would have failed to build if any code were using them anyway. (As quoted from the libbsd commit message.) Because the conflicts only affected function pointers, they should not affect the ABI, only the API so no rebuild should be needed, either. > But otherwise please go ahead and patch freebsd-glue in unstable as soon > as you think it's the right fix. We do need it pretty fast. I see you've dealt with this now. Regardless, I think this was the correct “fix”, even if usually not kosher, the freebsd-glue stuff pulls in libbsd anyway so it's kind of part of its API/ABI. Also there's the point raised in this thread of why kernel code might end up pulling in userland declarations. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140827194029.gc27...@gaara.hadrons.org
