I am confused, if it is stable why is the 1.9 branch called development.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arne
Blankerts
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 2:27 PM
To: vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
Subject: RE: [Vserver] Kernel 2.6.11.5 Problem
Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no, thanks I already figured it, the dietlibc needs
patching as the syscall(2) for x86_64 isn't implemented
.o( I wonder _what_ is running on your machine ;)
I guess it was using _syscall3() instead of syscall(). Shouldn't it?
yes, after I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Frost) writes:
according to Enrico (please confirm or correct) the glibc
has issues with the fake name resolver and is generally
considered insecure because usually dynamically linked ...
This really needs further explanation and justification. What about
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:43:50PM +0200, Ehab Heikal wrote:
I am confused, if it is stable why is the 1.9 branch called development.
probably because 'our' standards are somewhat higher,
and we prefer to call it development as long as we are not
damn sure that it is rock solid ...
(the 2.0
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:56:57PM +0200, Dennis Paulisch wrote:
Hi,
another Problem when I start:
/etc/init.d/vprocunhide start
I got many errors like this Ones:
you sure you are using proper tools 64bit on 64bit kernel
and 32bit on 32bit kernel? looks the the not yet
implemented
Hi,
yes this Problem is on the 32bit system, with 32bit kernel nothing now on
64bit.
This Test is on a Pentium III (Coppermine) System. with Suse 9.2 Kernel
2.6.11.5-vs1.9.5 with the latest Utilities.
Currently it work now... but your test.sh dropped the same error.
But now i can login into
Greetings Folks!
we had a longer discussion last night and we came to
the conclusion that this is the right time to start
working on a stable 2.0 release (for 2.6.x)
so while this will involve a lot of work and testing
in various places this also means that there will
be some kind of feature
Excellent! Is NG going to be part of it?
Grisha
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
Greetings Folks!
we had a longer discussion last night and we came to
the conclusion that this is the right time to start
working on a stable 2.0 release (for 2.6.x)
so while this will involve a lot of work
Cool now it will be called stable.
I have one question, is virtual networking like with freevps doable? Or
is it not there yet or not planned.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ehab Heikal
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 1:44 PM
To:
Enrico Scholz wrote:
Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what if we implement the _syscall3 for all known platforms
in a proper way, and feed them back to glibc/kernel headers
as well as integrate them into dietlibc and/or util-vserver?
The kernel (resp. projects like [1] which
10 matches
Mail list logo
