Re: new version of glibc xattr patch

2006-02-18 Thread Michael Banck
Hi, On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 03:58:38PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > Not tested in the slightest. Ben Asselstine and I tested and debugged this now. With a couple of small changes, attr's getfattr/setfattr commands and star work fine for gnu.translator and gnu.author. > +error_t > +_hurd_xattr

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Barry deFreese
- Original Message - From: "Thomas Bushnell BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: If a driver is re

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >If a driver is redundant, then we have no need to care about it. >If a driver doesn't work, we should not include it. > > If a driver doesn't work, then it should be fixed. It is appalling that you should so conveniently trim my words for m

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Seperate changes should have seperate headers. This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but it is not correct. Thomas ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
If a driver is redundant, then we have no need to care about it. If a driver doesn't work, we should not include it. If a driver doesn't work, then it should be fixed. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Seperate changes should have seperate headers. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device >>drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore? >> >> Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to >> simply make the nati

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
>Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device >drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore? > > Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to > simply make the native drivers work? We don't have any need to make drivers

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device >drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore? > > Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to > simply make the native drivers work? We don'

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not sure what `adopt all users' means. Maybe you mean callees? The conventional phrasing for functions here is to say "All callers changed." For something which is a macro is is used but not, strictly speaking, called, perhaps "All users cha

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm asking if there is logic to the split up, if there isn't, each > change should be in a seperate ChangeLog entry. If there is, please > explain such logic. This is incorrect. It is perfectly fine to make multiple unrelated changes in one chan

Re: Bug#190953: bug found (in libc)

2006-02-18 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Hi ! On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:45:58PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > Package: libc0.3-dev > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:27:45PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote: > > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > that's offtopic. i don't mind if you want to discu

Re: pcmcia-support for gnumach-1

2006-02-18 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
okay, still somewhat long, but here we go ... Thanks. Looks nice, it was tested and stuff right? Does swaping cards work? currently cards are only detected by the manfid, a "real" userspace cardmgr ought to detect by cis content, etc. as well (quite like linux's implementation does)

Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers

2006-02-18 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
> Is there some kind of logic to how you split up the ChangeLog > entries? What exactly don't you understand about it? I'm asking if there is logic to the split up, if there isn't, each change should be in a seperate ChangeLog entry. If there is, please explain such logic. > How did

Re: libc0.3: ioctl() incorrectly decodes argument

2006-02-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hi, Could the proposed patch applied to debian sometime? Having broken ioctls breaks quite important things (ioctl(fd, TIOCDRAIN) for instance...). (Note: this is a debian/hurd issue only, and the proposed patch only modifies hurd parts, so it is quite safe to apply...) Regards, Samuel ___