Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:52:56 -0800, Bryan Kadzban
> wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> If we set it to 2.6.30 (there's no point in adding the stable
>>> version as Glibc only checks the major.minor.patch level), we'll
>>> miss out on F_GETOWN_EX (new in 2.6.32 - see
>>>
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Whilst I don't want to drag this discussion on for too long, I'm not sure I
> follow this though. I'm sure some of the Glibc failures could be due to the
> fact that those tests are testing for features that the host's kernel simply
> doesn't support, so instead of the ex
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:52:56 -0800, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:48:09 -0600, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, so do we use 2.6.30.2 (LFS-6.5)? Do we need to update any other
>>> packages in the requirements or make everything from LFS-6.5 (Aug
> 2009
