Hi folks.

I recently posted a message to the bug-coreutils mailing list to see if we could get our i18n and uname patches committed upstream, or at least get feedback on what needs to be done in order to get equivalent fixes available in upstream tarballs. (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-08/msg00232.html)

1) The uname patch is, by its own admission, a major hack. It's Linux and x86 specific. I got pointed to a Gentoo patch, that whilst still Linux specific works across a number of architectures:

http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/coreutils/6.1/generic/003_all_coreutils-gentoo-uname.patch

I propose we use that patch until we get access to an upstream acceptable solution. Such a solution will require kernel and/or glibc cooperation as it requires a syscall that will return the required information. I'm no kernel or libc hacker, so if anyone might be able to look into this, or brave the relevant mailing lists to submit a feature request, that'd be great! Maybe such a syscall already exists?

2) The i18n patch isn't going to be accepted in its current state, which I already suspected. It's incomplete and makes the code harder to maintain. I'm currently waiting on feedback on how to proceed from here.

3) The suppress-uptime-kill-su patch is obviously Linux specific, so isn't suitable for upstream.

4) We currently use a sed to avoid a supposed buffer overflow in translated versions of `who'. This is unnecessary now as it's been fixed in a different manner, so the sed can be removed from the book.

Regards,

Matt.

--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to