Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
On Friday 02 January 2004 00:02, <DeXteR> wrote:
  
Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
    
On Thursday 01 January 2004 19:30, Juan F. Codagnone wrote:
      
I was surfing the internet, when i found this thread
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=119178

The attached path tries to hide that problem. I don't have NPTL in my
box, so i could't try if it really works.
        
I can't try it as well.
      
I can try it (fedora saddle's me up with an nptl kernel). But how can i
test it?
    

Well, just get Licq 1.2.7 from the website and try to compile it on your NPTL 
enabled linux. It should produce an error at the link stage. But i'm not sure 
if you really can test this, since redhat did backport nptl to the 2.4 kernel 
and therefore this is not a clean test, i'm pretty sure they modified big 
parts of the code and maybe they re-implemented the 
pthread_kill_other_threads_np function into NPTL due to compatibility 
reasons.
  
I run CVS for ages, never got me an error related to ntpl... :)
1.2.7 neither.
Indied RH messed around with it bigtime. Do the patch on a clean kernel fails still with me (prolly me ;-)

Anyway, if you receive the error proceed:
Wait a day and fetch Licq from CVS (cvs 
-d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/licq co licq) and try 
to compile this one, it should include Juan's fix.
If this one works for you, then the fix is ok :)
  
Kinda useless in that case :P


If one could help me with getting my laptop to run a pure-ntpl kernel, wich should get licq in compiling errors, i'll cooperate. :)

/Arjen


-- 
+------------------+---------+-------------------------+-----------------+
| * Arjen Heidinga | ICQ:    | 58810434                |  \|/ ____ \|/   |
| * DeXteR         | http:   | http://platypusnet.org/ |  "@'/ ,. \`@"   |
| * Heidistein     | GPG ID: | F7DB3C82                |  /_| \__/ |_\   |
+------------------+---------+-------------------------+     \__U_/      |
|     Sometimes words are a very limited language      |   SPARC PANIC   |
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------+

Reply via email to