On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 18:40 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Thu 01 Dec 2011 17:54:40 +0100, a écrit : > > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 17:32 +0100, Richard Braun wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 05:14:09PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > > > According to Pino T. a sysv-package can be built when shared memory is > > > > implemented (I thought it was already available?) > > > > > > Don't mistake "shared memory" with "System V shared memory" (sysvshm). > > > It's about the interface, not the functionality. > > > > So the SysV functions are not yet implemented, like shmget, shmat, > > shmctl, etc. > > These *are* implemented, that's why the difference with SysV IPC and > semaphores is important :)
Sorry that I don't get it: Pino said on November 30: 22:17:19< gnu_srs1> How much work is needed to support fakeroot-sysv? 22:17:50< pinotree> implement sysv shared memory And you claim that it is implemented already, so why do we use fakeroot-tcp, and not fakeroot-sysv? and: >> and fakeroot-sysv use SysV >> shared memory, right? >No, it uses IPC and semaphores. >> Another puzzling thing: >> Since semget, etc is not yet implemented, which semaphores are >> implemented in Hurd then? >Only in-process semaphores, by libpthread. I.e. sem_init, but not sem_open. Q1) What is the relation between fakeroot-sysv and SysV shared memory? Q2) fakeroot-sysv use IPC and semaphores. IPC is supported, but only for in-process semaphores are: Complete semaphore support is needed for fakeroot-sysv to work properly? Q3) What is the current status of fakeroot-hurd? Would that be a better alternative for the wholee fakeroot issue? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
