On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems in
> > getting 5.x packages built on the bento cluster, because it seems that
> > /bin/sh has come to depend on this syscall.  Executing a 5.x /bin/sh on
> > a 4.x system causes a SIGSYS if it hits this code (e.g. test -x
> > /some/binary) 
> > 
> > Can this syscall be MFCed soon? 
> Today it's eaccess(), tomorrow it's KSE system calls, ACL system calls,
> MAC system calls, 64-bit stat and ino_t, dev_t, devfs, ... 
> Certainly we can MFC eaccess(), but that's not going to make the problem
> go away.  Fundamentally our model is backward compatibility, not forward
> compatibility.  We need to build 5.0 packages on 5.0. 

Well, I've backed out the eaccess() use in /bin/test for now.  I agree
with you that ultimately this model will fail, but the longer we can
delay it the easier my life will be trying to manage the cluster and
get packages built.

I haven't yet tested the stability of 5.0 clients in the bento
cluster; hopefully it won't be too bad, but any stability problems
cause interruptions and increased work for me.  For example, for some
reason the gohan machines won't reboot on their own in response to a
reboot command, and have to be power cycled (they mostly come back up
okay if they panic, but sometimes they get stuck and need power
cycling still).  This means I can't currently automate booting them
into a 5.0 nfs snapshot when I want to build 5.0 packages.


Attachment: msg36001/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to