Re: iconx and execve problems
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 04:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit : the icon package FTBFS due to a missing . in PATH. Other architectures does not have this problem. According to Samuel the problem is missing info from glibc to the exec server about $0. In May-June 2010 Emilio Pozuelo monfort proposed a set of patches to glibc and the exec server by adding two new RPCs http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-05/msg00108.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-06/msg2.html Yes. It's also the reason for a bunch of testsuite failures, notably glib. I spent time on adding the patch to glibc this week-end, and currently adding it to the hurd package now. So this patch is now allowed in glibc, fine! Or is it only Debian? Good news is: as hoped, icon now passes the testsuite fine! I'm finalizing the patches, will upload the hurd package, eglibc will build, then rebuild hurd, and then icon should build fine, then ifupdown. Good news indeed. Congratulations!
Re: iconx and execve problems
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 Jun 2012 08:02:25 +0200, a écrit : On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 04:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit : the icon package FTBFS due to a missing . in PATH. Other architectures does not have this problem. According to Samuel the problem is missing info from glibc to the exec server about $0. In May-June 2010 Emilio Pozuelo monfort proposed a set of patches to glibc and the exec server by adding two new RPCs http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-05/msg00108.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-06/msg2.html Yes. It's also the reason for a bunch of testsuite failures, notably glib. I spent time on adding the patch to glibc this week-end, and currently adding it to the hurd package now. So this patch is now allowed in glibc, fine! Or is it only Debian? It's only in Debian. Samuel
Re: iconx and execve problems
Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit : the icon package FTBFS due to a missing . in PATH. Other architectures does not have this problem. According to Samuel the problem is missing info from glibc to the exec server about $0. In May-June 2010 Emilio Pozuelo monfort proposed a set of patches to glibc and the exec server by adding two new RPCs http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-05/msg00108.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-06/msg2.html Yes. It's also the reason for a bunch of testsuite failures, notably glib. I spent time on adding the patch to glibc this week-end, and currently adding it to the hurd package now. Good news is: as hoped, icon now passes the testsuite fine! I'm finalizing the patches, will upload the hurd package, eglibc will build, then rebuild hurd, and then icon should build fine, then ifupdown. Samuel
Re: iconx and execve problems
Svante Signell, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:30:52 +0200, a écrit : In May-June 2010 Emilio Pozuelo monfort proposed a set of patches to glibc and the exec server by adding two new RPCs http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-05/msg00108.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-06/msg2.html However, that patch was considered not worth the effort http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-06/msg00010.html Now when glibc Hurd patches are being considered upstream maybe the set of patches by Emilio can be revised again. In one way or another, this problem has to be solved, the icon package has to be moved from debian-ports to the main archive in the aim of GNU/Hurd to enter testing for wheezy. More precisely, ifupdown build-depends on noweb, which build-depends on iconx. Samuel
iconx and execve problems
Hello, As discussed on IRC recently and on the bug-hurd mailing list http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2012-01/msg4.html and the debian-hurd mailing list http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/01/msg1.html (bug 654381, tests run under fakeroot and . not in PATH) http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/01/msg2.html the icon package FTBFS due to a missing . in PATH. Other architectures does not have this problem. According to Samuel the problem is missing info from glibc to the exec server about $0. In May-June 2010 Emilio Pozuelo monfort proposed a set of patches to glibc and the exec server by adding two new RPCs http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-05/msg00108.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-06/msg2.html However, that patch was considered not worth the effort http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2010-06/msg00010.html Now when glibc Hurd patches are being considered upstream maybe the set of patches by Emilio can be revised again. In one way or another, this problem has to be solved, the icon package has to be moved from debian-ports to the main archive in the aim of GNU/Hurd to enter testing for wheezy. Thanks, Svante
