Dnia poniedziałek, 4 września 2006 12:38, Paweł Gołaszewski napisał:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > > Wygląda na to, że sprawa nagłówków kernelowo-userlandowych staje się
> > > coraz bardziej pilna. Przy okazji budowania upstart napotkałem kilka
> > > rzeczy:
> > > - brak nagłówka inotify.h - po prostym skopiowaniu z kernela sprawa
> > > załatwiona. klibc-devel zawiera nagłówek o tej nazwie (zawartości
> > > nie porównywałem),
> > > - definicje RLIMIT_NICE i RLIMIT_RTPRIO - choć to ostatnie chyba
> > > powinno być w nagłówkach glibc-a (jest w 2.4?)
> > > - ...zapewne trochę innych rzeczy jest jeszcze...
> > >
> > > Nasze ostatnie nagłówki to dosyć antyczne rzeczy - wartoby chyba
> > > zastanowić się co z tym dalej. To dotyczy także AC, bo kernele tam są
> > > znacznie nowsze (mają być).....
> >
> > SOD#1 ;P
>
> ;P
>
> > W przypadku problemów czasowych można zebrać najpotrzebniejsze
> > uaktualnienia w łatę i dodać do speca, jak kilka innych uaktualnień
> > dotychczas (audit, netfilter, net).
>
> Nie o to dokładnie mi chodziło. Ktoś tutaj dawał linka do projektu
> alternatywnych nagłówków userlandowych, więc może wartoby się zastanowić
> nad przejściem na nie, skoro nasze są całkowicie nieaktualizowane.
>
> AFAIR mmazur się tym zajmował, więc pytanie od niego: czy ten projekt
> idzie /dev/drzewo czy jak?
--- Begin Message ---
(I'm the guy responsible for the original llh, should anyone care :)
After declaring llh dead, I've mailed to the lkml a plan on doing llh-ng,
which I, obviously, never actually came around to starting (for various
reasons). Good thing there's movement both here and in the kernel on
resolving the issue.
Obviously my distro (PLD) is also interested in a new set of headers since we
also need to compile against something, which in turns means we're more than
willing to help (probably 1-3 developers would be sending updates on a
semi-regular basis).
That's why I'd ask for comments on the issues I've raised in the original
llh-ng proposal (can be found here:
http://mmazur.name/blog/8/initial-llh-ng-proposal), since answers would be of
interest to both me and other PLD developers.
(I'm not subscribed, so I'd ask to CC me)
--
Judge others by their intentions and yourself by your results.
Guy Kawasaki
Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from
time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mariusz Mazur wrote:
(I'm the guy responsible for the original llh, should anyone care :)
After declaring llh dead, I've mailed to the lkml a plan on doing llh-ng,
which I, obviously, never actually came around to starting (for various
reasons). Good thing there's movement both here and in the kernel on
resolving the issue.
Obviously my distro (PLD) is also interested in a new set of headers since we
also need to compile against something, which in turns means we're more than
willing to help (probably 1-3 developers would be sending updates on a
semi-regular basis).
That's why I'd ask for comments on the issues I've raised in the original
llh-ng proposal (can be found here:
http://mmazur.name/blog/8/initial-llh-ng-proposal), since answers would be of
interest to both me and other PLD developers.
(I'm not subscribed, so I'd ask to CC me)
Looked at your proposal it's very sound. I don't know how my project
would fit into it.
My project is basically a sanitation script for the 2.6 series raw
headers, so I don't know how it would fit in. I do know for a fact the
work that David Woodhouse is doing is very similar, but he only cares
about what Fedora's supports. I'm trying to support everything.and it's
very tricky to maintain the status quo.
Jim Gifford
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-pl mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-pl
