Yo Hal! On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:09:05 -0700 Hal Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, back on the original subject of seccomp, did the seccomp
> > changes work for you? No point testing seccomp on *BSD.
>
> What does "work" mean?
As explained in the email: force a seccomp failure, see if the output
looks better to you. The output should be improved a bit, if you
have seccomp but no execinfo.h Improved with a backtrace if you
have execinfo.h.
Only worth trying on Linux since seccomp is only on Linux.
It 'works' if you like it better than before.
> I think I'm up to date with git head. I ran it through my
> compile-on-lots-of-systems script. The only complaints I got were
> those warnings.
Fixes just pushed for the one warning I knew about.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
[email protected] Tel:+1 541 382 8588
Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgpmmVeXQlXfT.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
