seems like it worked. we have not been getting dead mureqds for a
while(this is our application that was failing)
fariba wrote:
i relinked our other application(mureqd) with the new 2.6 (thread
disabled) and released it, to see if the process functions better now.
Phil Dibowitz wrote:
On
thank you. may be i should explain what o really want to know: why by
disabling the threads our problem on 2.6 went away? why using these
flags was suggested? is multi-threading support kind of buggy?
Sam Hartman wrote:
fariba == fariba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fariba i
On Jul 11, 2005, at 04:59, fariba wrote:
thank you. may be i should explain what o really want to know: why by
disabling the threads our problem on 2.6 went away? why using these
flags was suggested? is multi-threading support kind of buggy?
There have been problems on some systems in
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 03:53:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
fariba == fariba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fariba i work with phil as well. i was wondering what are the
fariba proc/con of using these flags:
fariba --disable-shared --enable-static --disable-threads
It turns
i relinked our other application(mureqd) with the new 2.6 (thread
disabled) and released it, to see if the process functions better now.
Phil Dibowitz wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 03:53:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
fariba == fariba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fariba
fariba == fariba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fariba i work with phil as well. i was wondering what are the
fariba proc/con of using these flags:
fariba --disable-shared --enable-static --disable-threads
It turns off threads support which gets you roughly the 1.3.x
behavior. If
fariba wrote:
i work with phil as well. i was wondering what are the proc/con of using
these flags:
--disable-shared --enable-static --disable-threads
in solaris 2.8 or higher?
we have an application that since we upgraded to this version of
kerberos, it occasionally core dumps on
On Jul 8, 2005, at 00:56, Phil Dibowitz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:37:52PM -0400, Ken Raeburn wrote:
Without a bit more data, it's hard to tell. Do these applications
link
against the pthread library? Did you give any interesting options
when
configuring the Kerberos code? What did
Phil == Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phil On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:40:29AM -0400, Ken Raeburn wrote:
Please try out the attached patch. It's a bit more paranoid
about checking for real pthread support versus broken stubs.
If that doesn't fix it, we'll need to do
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:42:47PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Phil == Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phil On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:40:29AM -0400, Ken Raeburn wrote:
Please try out the attached patch. It's a bit more paranoid
about checking for real pthread support
On Jul 7, 2005, at 17:46, Phil Dibowitz wrote:
Things worked well, except that on Solaris 2.6, several applications,
including openssh and a homegrown app through this:
Assertion failed: i-did_run != 0, file
../../../../src/lib/krb5/../../include/k5-platform.h, line 232
And for reference,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:37:52PM -0400, Ken Raeburn wrote:
Without a bit more data, it's hard to tell. Do these applications link
against the pthread library? Did you give any interesting options when
configuring the Kerberos code? What did configure report when it went
looking for
12 matches
Mail list logo
