On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:58:02AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Do you know if upgrading to the 2.4 kernel version available in sarge m=
akes
> > a difference here?=20
> Anything specific you're looking for there Steve?
Yes:
+ arm: upgrade doesn't work with 2.2, but can work with 2.4.24 or above.
(perhaps also with older versions, currently unknown)
(details: glibc vs kernel, source: kylem, tested on netwinder)
[*]
AFAIK, this was the only discussion of minimum kernel versions for sarge
on ARM prior to release; it's very possible that either a glibc change or a
toolchain change has resulted in the current ARM libacl binaries being
usable only on later kernels than what was available in woody, due to
differing ABIs. We had a hard time finding people to test this upgrade
path, because there are apparently relatively few machines that are
compatible with the ARM kernels that shipped in woody. :/
> I know the ACL kernel patches fairly well, and nothing has changed for
> years now so I'd be surprised if a kernel upgrade changed anything.
On the contrary, libacl works sanely on kernels lacking any ACL kernel
support whatsoever -- this architecture-specific failure more likely points
to a kernel ABI issue specific to ARM.
--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
--9dgjiU4MmWPVapMU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:56:13 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: Nathan Scott <email address hidden>
Cc: Jonathan David Amery <email address hidden>,
<email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#312936: Programmes linked against libacl1 segfault in libacl1 code.
--9dgjiU4MmWPVapMU Disposition: inline Transfer- Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-
Content-
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:58:02AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Do you know if upgrading to the 2.4 kernel version available in sarge m=
akes
> > a difference here?=20
> Anything specific you're looking for there Steve?
Yes:
+ arm: upgrade doesn't work with 2.2, but can work with 2.4.24 or above.
(perhaps also with older versions, currently unknown)
(details: glibc vs kernel, source: kylem, tested on netwinder)
[*]
http:// release. debian. org/upgrade- kernel
AFAIK, this was the only discussion of minimum kernel versions for sarge
on ARM prior to release; it's very possible that either a glibc change or a
toolchain change has resulted in the current ARM libacl binaries being
usable only on later kernels than what was available in woody, due to
differing ABIs. We had a hard time finding people to test this upgrade
path, because there are apparently relatively few machines that are
compatible with the ARM kernels that shipped in woody. :/
> I know the ACL kernel patches fairly well, and nothing has changed for
> years now so I'd be surprised if a kernel upgrade changed anything.
On the contrary, libacl works sanely on kernels lacking any ACL kernel specific failure more likely points
support whatsoever -- this architecture-
to a kernel ABI issue specific to ARM.
--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
--9dgjiU4MmWPVapMU pgp-signature; name="signature .asc" Description: Digital signature Disposition: inline
Content-Type: application/
Content-
Content-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
ufymYLloRAlwFAK DALNif3dlstVU3m r+3DwXl/ CHlcwCfX4hK xU4YgFq8=
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCrkdMKN6
V1wOsfNyditwDlQ
=6XhV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9dgjiU4MmWPVa pMU--