On 8/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks.
I recently posted a message to the bug-coreutils mailing list to see if
we could get our i18n and uname patches committed upstream, or at least
get feedback on what needs to be done in order to get equivalent fixes
available in upstream tarballs.
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-08/msg00232.html)
Excellent, Matt.
1) The uname patch is, by its own admission, a major hack. It's Linux
and x86 specific. I got pointed to a Gentoo patch, that whilst still
Linux specific works across a number of architectures:
http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/coreutils/6.1/generic/003_all_coreutils-gentoo-uname.patch
I propose we use that patch until we get access to an upstream
acceptable solution. Such a solution will require kernel and/or glibc
cooperation as it requires a syscall that will return the required
information. I'm no kernel or libc hacker, so if anyone might be able
to look into this, or brave the relevant mailing lists to submit a
feature request, that'd be great! Maybe such a syscall already exists?
That sounds fine to me. A hack is a hack, and that ones probably
better maintained than ours.
4) We currently use a sed to avoid a supposed buffer overflow in
translated versions of `who'. This is unnecessary now as it's been
fixed in a different manner, so the sed can be removed from the book.
Nice.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
