On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:58:40AM +0000, Mark Sheppard wrote: > On 2004-01-07 (Wednesday) at 22:39:18 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:04:17PM +0000, Mark Sheppard wrote: > > > > > > I'm getting the same behaviour as the bug in report #218546. All > > > commands that use fork() fail with: > > > > > > ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fork.c:132: __libc_fork: Assertion > [...] > > > Looks like the hosting company installed a custom kernel: > > > > > > Linux mail 2.4.18200310143 #1 Fri Oct 24 14:42:51 BST 2003 i686 unknown > > > [...] > > > > Um.... I really, really don't want to work around that. It's a > > completely broken kernel version. What do you expect anything else > > that checks the kernel version string to do? > > Fair enough if you need to parse the whole thing, but from what you've > said it sounds like you don't have to: > > The code in ld.so is supposed to choose the copy of libc in /lib for > any kernel version less than 2.6.0 > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but couldn't you just check the > major and minor version numbers and totally ignore the revision number > (i.e. anything beyond the second ".")? Or if this is something that > changed half way through the 2.5 kernels then you could only check the > revision if major == 2 && minor == 5?
The code is not Debian specific. It lets you build glibc (or any other library) for any specific kernel version and have it skipped for lower versions. If someone builds a 2.4.22 library, how the heck am I supposed to figure out if that's above or below 2.4.18200310143? So I'm reluctant to do a hack/slash job on it to handle the specific case we're using. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
