On Sunday 31 October 2010 16:43:00 Khem Raj wrote: > heh it was a suggestion rather than an order as you interpreted :) and > because you have spend time to understand the problem to its entirety > it would be more effective if you looked > this aspect of it as well, which you did so thanks for it.
Sorry, stressful week. (My last contract ended unexpectedly because the department I was working for didn't get its budget approved. Just did a two week push to try to get as much finished and handed off as possible, and now I'm catching up on open source todo items on my first really free weekend in months...) I'm a bit snappish right now, trying to focus more on coding than correspondence. :) > > More to the point, _when_ I dug down into it I found out (and explained > > in the above email) that this codepath only triggers when we _haven't_ > > got posix_spawn(), and as far as I can tell it wouldn't work in glibc > > either but since they do have posix_spawn() it doesn't come up. > > Whats your opinion if we implement posix_spawn in uclibc ? Considering that it's in posix, probably a good idea? At least as a config option... There's a longish thread about why the _kernel_ doesn't have it here: http://lwn.net/Articles/360509/ According to the copyright on spawn.h, it's been in glibc since 2003. And the problems comes in when we claim to be glibc, then don't provide things glibc does. It tends to send configure scripts and #ifdef trees down untested paths. (A config option to not pretend to be glibc would be entertaining to test. :) *shrug* The header change I posted wired around the need for it in m4 and bison. What we _really_ need is a lot more regression testing against actual packages, which I'm working on now. (I'm teaching Aboriginal LInux to auto- build Linux From Scratch on every supported target, and then I can do Beyond Linuxx From Scratch, and then I can get back to bootstrapping gentoo. I was trying to bootstrap gentoo first, but getting packages to work against uclibc and busybox _and_ getting portage and catalyst to work all in one go... bit much to chew at once. Getting the packages to work, _then_ getting portage to work, makes much more sense...) > > By the way, as long as you're ordering me to do more work, I note that > > this is from 2008: > > > > http://repository.timesys.com/buildsources/u/uClibc/uClibc-0.9.30/uClibc- > >0.9.30- unexport_ruserpass.patch > > this patch looks good to me. We should integrate it. Woot. I hate to bring up the word "release" on this list, but is there any chance of integrating this patch actually meaning something in the forseeable future? Rob -- GPLv3: as worthy a successor as The Phantom Menace, as timely as Duke Nukem Forever, and as welcome as New Coke. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
