On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:03:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:59:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > This modification was done because mprotect returned EFAULT instead of > > ENOMEM, that was simply POSIX violation. The actual problem is linux > > kernel 2.4. But in order to work glibc 2.3.5 on etch, we need to fix > > adhoc patch to change dl-execstack.c. I don't know it's acceptable > > for upstream, but it's worth fixing. If it'll be rejected, this patch > > should be marked as "until-etch" if etch does not support any 2.4 > > kernel hopefully. Now the patch that I have not tested yet. Is this > > solution desired for the next 2.3.5-4? > > Etch certainly won't support 2.4.18 officially; that will be an > oldstable-1 kernel at the time etch releases. Is it really worth trying > to maintain compatibility with that kernel? > > AIUI, glibc 2.3.5 is currently compatible with the sarge and etch 2.4 > kernels. That seems sufficient to me; why not just mark glibc in the > preinst as being incompatible with old 2.4 kernels?
I'm fine with either of these solutions. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
