On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 16:53 +0200, Thilo Fromm wrote: > Hello Guys, > > this is a somewhat cumulated response - I'd like to address some of the > things mentioned at different points in the discussion in one place. > Please forgive me should I misquote things. > > > > Graeme Gregory in <[email protected]>: > > [Steffen Sledz] > > > It seem's not to be possible to use DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_hipox in the > > > linux-libc-headers recipes. So what's the right way to handle this? > > > Something like PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers_hipox = "2.6.24" > > > in angstrom-2008.1.conf? > > > [Graeme Gregory] > > I thought glibc was supposed to gracefully fall back on missing > > syscalls? > > Glibc is compiled against 2.6.31 headers, which is one of our main > issues here. It only ever *runs* with a 2.6.24 kernel on the target > system, though. So it cannot know about missing syscalls until runtime.
Looking at it again and based on what Khem said (and re-reading your failures), the problem is not with glibc, but with other programs (glib, udev are both mentioned specifically) and these programs specifically not failing gracefully. For example, it's quoted over in: http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-May/019626.html that glib falls way back. I think Phil was wrong here and without checking the code, I imagine glib is trying fancy newer syscall, failing, and then falling far back, rather than to just inotify_init as you expected. So the bug here is with glib. As for the udev issue, I do not know how they will react to making the udev version be soft-assign as that too may raise issues. And iirc, udev is or at least can be more tied to min kernel versions. -- Tom Rini <[email protected]> Mentor Graphics Corporation _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
