Hello 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.
Sounds good. So if I backport setattr from unstable I should not need vproc at all. I'll do that. > > 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 ;) I let others do that job for me. :) Regards, // Ola > Bjoern > > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
