[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: flag day for 64-bit?
From: |
Marcus Brinkmann |
Subject: |
Re: flag day for 64-bit? |
Date: |
Sat, 8 Jun 2002 05:12:56 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Ok. I wonder if there is some way we can make the dpkg dependency magic
> flag them for us
The glibc package can make packages compiled against it require this newer
(Debian) version, even if the soname stays the same. But if you install
glibc+hurd but not foo-using-instable-rpcs, foo-using-instable-rpcs will
fail to run and we can't help it.
> Ideal would be something that prevented their installation. But you could
> certainly just examine the extant package set for that dependency to be
> sure what to recompile (or even make the new hurd pkg conflict with those
> individual old pkgs?).
You would conflict foo-using-instable-rpcs (<= X.Y.Z), where X.Y.Z is the
last broken version.
> I simply accept that we won't have a usable netmsgserver
> before we have different IPC and IDL technology altogether and can address
> the whole question at a higher level.
Oh yeah, I buy into that.
> > This is then followed by a discussion about io_map, which we probably ignore
> > for now :) unless we can agree on the right interface for it today.
>
> I've already stated several times that we're agreed on my plan.
It must have gotten lost in the disagreement over the server side
implementationt, sorry. I am touching this issue with long-distance pliers :)
> At least one of those times, Thomas said it would be acceptable.
I think I remember that, too (so it must be true).
> > If we can agree on that, we could probably get the interface change in here
> > for the future. OTOH, changing the interface like this will require to
> > change the code a bit to meet the new semantics (and in fact, the client has
> > to do two RPCs if it wants a readable and a writable memory object - in case
> > they are disjoint).
>
> I am not sure what you are saying here. The only thing that makes sense
> (for mmap) is to say that the interface returns the max protection
> available and if that doesn't include what the client asked for, then mmap
> just fails.
Oh, mmmh, yeah ok. The current interface confused me a bit.
> So, I tried a build with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 and it went quite smoothly.
> So I now think that's the right thing to do. The exported Hurd header
> files like store.h et al can be made LFS-aware so that they work in that
> mode and also in 32-bit mode with their interfaces using struct stat64 et al.
Sounds great!
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org address@hidden
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org address@hidden
address@hidden
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, (continued)
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/06/07
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Roland McGrath, 2002/06/07
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/06/07
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Roland McGrath, 2002/06/07
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/06/07
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/06/07
- Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Jeff Bailey, 2002/06/08
Re: flag day for 64-bit?, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/06/07