Re: Package requiring a customised version of libc6

2007-08-24 Thread Jack T Mudge III
On Thursday 23 August 2007 17:26, David Given wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: [...] The people who have responded to you so far strongly suspect that it's not worth the effort, but without knowing why the glibc we already distribute can't be used, it's hard for us to give you a definitive

Re: Package requiring a customised version of libc6

2007-08-24 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 24/08/07 at 01:26 +0100, David Given wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Don Armstrong wrote: [...] The people who have responded to you so far strongly suspect that it's not worth the effort, but without knowing why the glibc we already distribute can't be used,

Re: Package requiring a customised version of libc6

2007-08-24 Thread David Given
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] Then what about using ptrace and overriding syscalls in the way usermodelinux used to do it? Yes, indeed; that is currently looking like the best approach. Not only does it provide the low-level interface that upstream

Re: Package requiring a customised version of libc6

2007-08-24 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:23:39PM +0100, David Given wrote: (Incidentally, the more I look at fakechroot the more I'm coming to believe that it's no use for anything whatsoever. The security aspects of it are... erm... nil; it's trivial for the client app to break out of its jail. Is this a

Re: [RFS] stunnel4 (updated package, adoption, RFS repost)

2007-08-24 Thread Kapil Hari Paranjape
Hello, On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Package looks fine. I'm currently updating my local pbuilder base and will upload when that is done. Unfortunately, I just realised that there are a few more changes that I think you should make! While looking through your debian/rules I