Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Karsten Bräckelmann put forth on 10/24/2010 6:34 PM: > On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 18:02 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>> Don't know about Ubuntu but Fedora 11 is already EOL'ed so there's no >>> need to fix it for that. Didn't realise that glibc 2.10 was that rare. >> >> How old is glibc 2.10? >> >> I th

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 18:02 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Don't know about Ubuntu but Fedora 11 is already EOL'ed so there's no > > need to fix it for that. Didn't realise that glibc 2.10 was that rare. > > How old is glibc 2.10? > > I thought Debian Lenny (which I use) was old. It's approachi

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Paul Howarth put forth on 10/24/2010 2:16 PM: > Don't know about Ubuntu but Fedora 11 is already EOL'ed so there's no > need to fix it for that. Didn't realise that glibc 2.10 was that rare. How old is glibc 2.10? I thought Debian Lenny (which I use) was old. It's approaching two years since re

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Paul Howarth
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:26:51 +0100 Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 24.10.2010, at 20.16, Paul Howarth wrote: > > >> A lot of code just to work around a bug that apparently only exists > >> in Ubuntu 9.10 and Fedora 11. Is there a reason for anyone to be > >> actually using either of them? I was thinki

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Timo Sirainen
On 24.10.2010, at 20.16, Paul Howarth wrote: >> A lot of code just to work around a bug that apparently only exists >> in Ubuntu 9.10 and Fedora 11. Is there a reason for anyone to be >> actually using either of them? I was thinking about just ignoring >> this problem. > > Don't know about Ubuntu

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Paul Howarth
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:10:08 +0100 Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 22.10.2010, at 19.22, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > In glibc 2.10 (32 bit) fallocate() exists but fallocate64() doesn't. > > When _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64, fallocate() is a redirect to > > fallocate64() and the program can't be linked (fails

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread William Blunn
On 24/10/2010 15:10, Timo Sirainen wrote: A lot of code just to work around a bug that apparently only exists in Ubuntu 9.10 and Fedora 11. Is there a reason for anyone to be actually using either of them? I was thinking about just ignoring this problem. I thought you were fixing bugs coming o

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Jerry
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:10:08 +0100 Timo Sirainen articulated: > On 22.10.2010, at 19.22, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > In glibc 2.10 (32 bit) fallocate() exists but fallocate64() doesn't. > > When _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64, fallocate() is a redirect to > > fallocate64() and the program can't be linked (

Re: [Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-24 Thread Timo Sirainen
On 22.10.2010, at 19.22, Paul Howarth wrote: > In glibc 2.10 (32 bit) fallocate() exists but fallocate64() doesn't. > When _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64, fallocate() is a redirect to fallocate64() > and the program can't be linked (fails to find symbol fallocate64). > See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/500487

[Dovecot] fallocate and glibc 2.10

2010-10-22 Thread Paul Howarth
In glibc 2.10 (32 bit) fallocate() exists but fallocate64() doesn't. When _FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64, fallocate() is a redirect to fallocate64() and the program can't be linked (fails to find symbol fallocate64). See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/500487 Attached patch detects fallocate() more robustly to