On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 12:23 +0900, Horms wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 02:32:13PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:22:25 +0900, Horms wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > A sounds fine from my point of view, as it involves the least effort. > > > Although as I discovered this morning, there seems to be a second ABI > > > change relating to the same patch, so we should get that out ASAP. > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284356#msg68 > > > > Hm, you're referring to the addition of termios_sem (which was already > > added to 2.6), or something else? > > Yes, that is the one. >
Joeyh doesn't seem to care which we do (he said it's the same amount of effort for him both ways, he just asked that whatever we decide be consistent for 2.4 and 2.6. So, I'm going to recommend reverting the tty locking patch and bumping the SONAME. For 2.4, this makes sense since the kernel w/ the broken ABI hasn't propogated to sarge yet. For 2.6, this is a bit more painful, since the broken ABI is already in sarge, but.. *shrug*. -- Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
