On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 21:05 +0100, Robert de Bath wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jul 2014, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 10:52 +0100, Robert de Bath wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Robert de Bath wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >>> > > What do you mean, reinstate? This is the same behaviour you get at > > present. Well, here's a new version that might do that. > I was sure ... hmmm, segfault? ... Oh I see. > > I'd copied the (static) exe to a wheezy (3.2 kernel) machine; that's > where it gives a 'cannot execute' error.
Linux 3.2 predates addition of x32 support.
> I suppose that means it's an upstream 'bug'.
Yes, I would say so.
> Okay, the new patch is good for me. I've again tried it with the flag
> both ways. It runs the executables correctly when the flag is set and
> gives a reasonably nice (and quite specific) error when it's not. ("Exec
> format error")
>
> I also have a i386 userspace running happily.
>
> I'd say it's good to go.
Great!
But I should maybe add the config option you suggested, so people can
build custom kernels from Debian source that won't need this parameter.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
- Robert Coveyou
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
