Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 2014-02-14 00:32, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote: >>> Secondly, there are cases like GDM, where a single unsupported package >>> have rather "long reaching" consequences. In the concrete example, >>> GNOME (via gnome-core) strictly depends on gdm3, meaning that if gdm3 >>> goes, (more or le

Re: Emulation of sendfile().

lördag den 26 oktober 2013 klockan 18:09 skrev Robert Millan detta: > > Please could you try: > > 1. Rebuild freebsd-glue with attached patch > 2. Add "-I /usr/include/freebsd" to CFLAGS in your package. > 3. Add "-lfreebsd-glue" to LDFLAGS in your package. > > This should seamlessly map sendfile

Re: Emulation of sendfile().

On 16/02/2014 10:40, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: >> > 1. Rebuild freebsd-glue with attached patch >> > 2. Add "-I /usr/include/freebsd" to CFLAGS in your package. >> > 3. Add "-lfreebsd-glue" to LDFLAGS in your package. >> > >> > This should seamlessly map sendfile() to the BSD version. >> > >> > A

Re: Emulation of sendfile().

söndag den 16 februari 2014 klockan 12:19 skrev Robert Millan detta: > On 16/02/2014 10:40, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: > >> > This should seamlessly map sendfile() to the BSD version. > >> > > >> > Alternatively, you can skip step 2 and use bsd_sendfile() instead. > > I now doubt the sanity of you

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 16/02/2014 08:49, Niels Thykier wrote: > I believe Robert concluded that it was possible to use an alternative to > gdm3 (I forgot if it was lightdm or xdm). Well, not exactly. I think we're at a cross-roads. My understanding is that this used to be possible until now, but the GNOME maintaine

Re: Emulation of sendfile().

On 16/02/2014 12:33, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: > But this raises a new question: Will present or future versions > of eglibc, with the architecture kfreebsd-any, expose a functional > library call > > ssize_t sendfile (int, int, off_t, size_t) > > for general use? I.e., will the stub ever be r