Your message dated Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:20:43 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#190638: out of date headers
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Apr 2003 20:32:25 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 24 15:32:15 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from hq.voxel.net (nrop) [66.109.37.2]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 198nO7-0000L5-00; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:32:11 -0500
Received: by nrop (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 4D09BBFEEF; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libc6-dev: out-of-date linux headers (linux/ethtool.h)
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.10.1
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:32:09 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.3 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,PATCH_UNIFIED_DIFF
autolearn=ham version=2.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.1-16
Severity: normal
/usr/include/linux/ethtool.h should be the same across all
architectures, as it's pulled from the kernel's include/linux directory.
However, it would appear that the m68k package has an out-of-date
ethtool.h file (and I suspect others) that's keeping my package
(keepalived) from building. Here's part of 2.3.1-16, m68k vs i386:
--- linux/ethtool.h 2003-03-25 00:01:42.000000000 -0500
+++ /usr/include/linux/ethtool.h 2003-04-20 13:37:28.000000000
-0400
@@ -3,6 +3,10 @@
*
* Copyright (C) 1998 David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com)
* Copyright 2001 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ * Portions Copyright 2001 Sun Microsystems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
+ * Portions Copyright 2002 Intel ([EMAIL PROTECTED],
+ * [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+ * [EMAIL PROTECTED])
*/
#ifndef _LINUX_ETHTOOL_H
@@ -25,17 +29,21 @@
u32 reserved[4];
};
+#define ETHTOOL_BUSINFO_LEN 32
/* these strings are set to whatever the driver author decides... */
struct ethtool_drvinfo {
u32 cmd;
char driver[32]; /* driver short name, "tulip",
"eepro100" */
char version[32]; /* driver version string */
char fw_version[32]; /* firmware version string, if
applicable */
- char bus_info[32]; /* Bus info for this interface. For PCI
- * devices, use pci_dev->slot_name. */
+ char bus_info[ETHTOOL_BUSINFO_LEN]; /* Bus info for this IF.
*/
+ /* For PCI devices, use
pci_dev->slot_name. */
char reserved1[32];
- char reserved2[28];
- u32 regdump_len; /* Amount of data from ETHTOOL_GREGS */
+ char reserved2[16];
+ u32 n_stats; /* number of u64's from ETHTOOL_GSTATS
*/
+ u32 testinfo_len;
+ u32 eedump_len; /* Size of data from ETHTOOL_GEEPROM
(bytes) */
+ u32 regdump_len; /* Size of data from ETHTOOL_GREGS
(bytes) */
};
I'm not quite sure how they managed to be different, I would've assumed
that glibc had the linux headers originate from the same place (and not
be in per-arch locations). But, I guess not. Anyways, it would be good
if the linux directory was updated to be the same across all archs.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux nrop 2.4.20-ben7 #15 Sat Mar 1 15:37:39 EST 2003 ppc
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.1-17 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 190638-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Jul 2004 10:20:44 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 05 03:20:44 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (webmasters.gr.jp) [218.44.239.78]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BhQaa-0002C2-00; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 03:20:44 -0700
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by webmasters.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D04CDEB58
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:20:43 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:20:43 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#190638: out of date headers
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya)
FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
At Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:02:35 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:30:12 -0400,
> Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 12:34:51PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > >
> > > Umm, we should increase m68k buildd more and more :)
> >
> > No, the kernel-images can not be autobuild, somebody has to create the
> > packages first.
> >
> > > The problem is there is no kernel-headers-2.4.20. We have only
> > > kernel-headers-2.4.14-m68k. Are there any chances to update
> > > kernel-headers bumping up to 2.4.20?
> >
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 28 10:24:32 2003
> > Subject: kernel-headers-2.4.20-m68k_2.4.20-1_m68k.changes ACCEPTED
>
> Thanks, once it's installed into buildd, #190638 should be fixed.
m68k has newer kernel these days. In addition, the kernel headers is
moved to linux-kernel-headers which is 2.6 based. I think there's no
problem to close this bug.
Regards,
-- gotom
