Re: openpty under kFreeBSD
Le 3 oct. 2013 23:40, Daniel Lintott dan...@serverb.co.uk a écrit : Hi Bastien, Could you possible elaborate a little for me. My C skills are somewhat rusty and dated! Gnulib (SEE gnylib website ) ils a source library. Thé goal of the library to avoid portability problèmes between unix. You could try the test suite of forkpty module. If it fail it is likely a kernel problem (and both reported to gnulib list and freebsd). If is not fail you should: - stick as much as possible to gnulib code. - use gnulib module. Regards Daniel On 03/10/13 17:11, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: Le 3 oct. 2013 17:06, Daniel Lintott dan...@serverb.co.uk mailto:dan...@serverb.co.uk a écrit : Hi, I am currently in the process of packaging a piece of software over on Mentors, but have run into a bug affecting only kFreeBSD. Have you have tried gnulib module? The software calls openpty, but this fails with the error No child processes The code in question can be found here [1] and the RFS bug report can be found here [2] If anybody has any suggestions, they would be gratefully received. Regards, Daniel Lintott [1] http://sourceforge.net/p/vpcs/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/src/hv.c#l164 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721080 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org mailto:debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org mailto:listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/524d6a57.40...@serverb.co.uk
Re: openpty under kFreeBSD
Le 3 oct. 2013 17:06, Daniel Lintott dan...@serverb.co.uk a écrit : -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I am currently in the process of packaging a piece of software over on Mentors, but have run into a bug affecting only kFreeBSD. Have you have tried gnulib module? The software calls openpty, but this fails with the error No child processes The code in question can be found here [1] and the RFS bug report can be found here [2] If anybody has any suggestions, they would be gratefully received. Regards, Daniel Lintott [1] http://sourceforge.net/p/vpcs/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/src/hv.c#l164 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721080 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSTWpRAAoJEMw/9yOWzAkJOzQIALisIES4cbqYGF5QFZm8sgxh stgn4m/IikxiDRvDmLDFqsNphS9uj7qf68QFfMJ3bF/b2aFisWLZJk80SYZNr+L/ 7L4w5Ymxyt07jye12UgZI1wLJ3nc8rnJRSdAnSWVtn78LcagBYThq98oKQ5hIQNG +fkXEr2jplQob+BzqBO31ub+3ktWI3kJyzQ6eDC408o9/0kfAd5QHX8RHCDVvOGm +CmePvzpOiPcpLuQ1AsxXyDArc3Vk69xnKIqdQViiok9CYzRL59zWlm7GAE9v2ZQ V/8Rx7lDru7MhdwAqYUsN8eLV/vbb2AhDV4UGbMzyrr6NHrBYRv4Enn5lIbdzZs= =+Vkt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/524d6a57.40...@serverb.co.uk
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Add me for armel. Bastien Le 2 oct. 2013 09:46, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net a écrit : Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] The (1) and .5 is from a I am not primarily a porter [...]-remark, so I wasn't sure how to count it. [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. NMs/DMs include DMs and people currently in NM process. The Other column may include people who said they would like to become porters (but would need to be introduced to the job) and thus may imply some active recruiting from the current porters. This is at least true for hurd-i386. The current policy says that we require 5 developers (i.e. DDs) for release architectures[AP], so based on that only amd64, i386 and hurd-i386 would pass this requirement. It is quite possible we need to revise that requirement, but most of the architectures would (still) do well to attract a few more (DD) porters. I have attached a file with my notes of who are behind those numbers. If your name is missing or you believe I have miscounted something[CD] for an architecture listed in the table above, please reply to this email *promptly* (CC'ing me explicitly is fine) with your concerns or corrections. At this time, I have *not* updated the arch qualification table yet. I will do that in a couple of days. We will also follow up on this in the next bits from the release team. ~Niels [AP] http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html [CD] I may (or may not) have been caffeine-deprived when I did the counting. You are free to make assumptions about whether that has affected my ability to do addic^Htion or parsing your email(s) properly.
