Hi,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 07:33:58PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >From c6276e2df1d370dbbdd7f4e6fb388f241f84fee7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 23:32:16 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Use the new _hurd_exec_file_name function
>
> * conf
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 07:28:42PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> New iteration. All mentioned issues have been fixed, except for the glibc
> check
> for the file_exec_file_name RPC, which I don't know how to do if not using
> HURD_INTERFACE_VERSION. Any suggestions are welcome.
I ha
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 07:42:25PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Also I've tested with the Debian package (which is at 2.11.2) so I
> needed to change the Versions file. I changed it to 2.11.2, but I
> got quite some warnings that GLIBC_2_11_2 was undefined. I changed
> it to 2_11 and
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 07:32:04PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> @@ -159,14 +193,28 @@ diskfs_S_file_exec (struct protid *cred,
>do
> {
> right = ports_get_send_right (newpi);
> - err = exec_exec (execserver,
> -right, MACH_MSG_TYPE_
On Saturday 24 July 2010 04:19:46 olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> IMHO Hurd-Extras was a very bad idea from the start. People writing
> useful translators should just man up and assign copyrights, so they can
> be included in the main Hurd repository -- where they actually stand a
> chance of gett
On Saturday 24 July 2010 04:08:51 olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> Not sure why you want to exclude me here :-)
That was just because you already said what’s missing. But your list here is
much more useful, so the excluding was clearly wrong :)
Am I right in reading your mail, that the real sh
Hello!
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 04:19:46AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > > > > They have some very interesting translators, and these should be
> > > > > easily available.
> You mean Git submodules? Yeah, that's an option worth considering. I'm a
> little undecided on submodules vs. mo
