On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:22:30PM +0200, Bjoern Steinbrink wrote: > On Di, 2004-08-17 at 22:11, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > > > So you say that setattr (that is already included) is better than > > > > vproc? > > > > > > Ah, i forgot to mention that the version of setattr included with the > > > stable tools does not allow to change the flags for proc entries, just > > > > Ahh ok. > > > > > the flags needed for unification. That's why i said you should backport > > > setattr from the unstable branch. > > > > I see. Is the setattr from unstable well tested and backwards compatible? > > >From my experience it works with the 2.4 as well as the 2.6 branch and
> i'd say it is very well tested since 2.6 does not really work without > setattr (or vproc...) and the common way is to use the vprocunhide > script which uses setattr. vproc will stop working with 2.6 kernel, once the backwards compatibility is switched off (legacy mode) so using setattr is a better choice here ... > > I do not want to throw something into Debian right now (untested) because > > we are _very_ close to a release. But I do want support for 2.6 kernel. :) > > (I have not tested 2.6 kernel yet myself). > > (Don't tell Bertl that you didn't test your package ;) yeah, better keep it secret ;) best, Herbert > Bjoern > > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
