At Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:07:24 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:00:02AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > So did the prior error occur from this issue? Or I guess it's > > something other things which is already fixed in these days... > > What prior error? If you mean the build failures due to this then they > were introduced with glibc 2.1 or 2.2 and are still present in glibc > 2.3.
You said "It's __WRONG_XPG3_SYS_SEM_H_SEM_PROTO that's working around the problem". At least I think your problem is already fixed. You have not described the real error. Who have trouble? Provide me the _real example_, or your _build message_. > > TenDRA things are still "workaround" state, but at least I think glibc > > definition satisfies your requirement, linux definition and the > > standards (not strictly, but some degree). Could I close this bug? > > Nothing has changed since the bug was reported - I'd say leave it open. > It's always possible someone will come along and implement a standard > conforming wrapper. So you contact to the upstream yourself. I don't think "we have to conform to the (sometimes old) standard everytime". Why do you want to conform the standard? -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
