On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 12:17:12PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > After about 20 days of work with both autodir and autofs4 upstream > a final fix for autodir is available (closes #399454). > Incidentally 0.9.8 is almost the same of 0.9.7 (integrating my previous fix > for an header file and an initial trial to fix the above bug) at upstream > level > and we are quite confident it does not impact stability in respect with > 0.9.7. > Just in case I could provide a 1:0.9.7-1 if required (0.9.7 was the last > available > version in testing AFAIK).
> About the fix, as communicated in #debian-kernel, just FYI: > <frankie> FYI: #399454 is essentially a bug in the auto_fs4.h header > file, as resulted by talking with autofs and autodir upstreams (API > breakage due to a change in a union used both in v4 and > v5). The issue potentially impact any program built on > 2.6.17+ and depending on auto_fs4.h. > <frankie> any program which still uses v4 protocol, indeed > <frankie> autofs upstream is fixing on his side for the kernel, but I > wonder if we need to fix as well etch linux-kernel-headers > <frankie> of course this is not a problem for debian binaries, but i > think developers would not appreciate a broken header in etch for their > buildings and the issue is quite obscure If the union is different between v4 and v5, what would a *fixed* header look like? Is this anything other than picking which protocol to be incompatible with? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
