Hello Andree and everyone, (Sorry Andree, I've just noticed that you had sent the previous message to the BTS as well as to me... I make the answer short here !)
> The failure you report is interesting, indeed. I've tried with a minimum > recovery CD myself (excluded all files, booted in expert), and didn't > see a problem, neither on a Sarge nor on a Sid system, e.g. grep started > fine using the libc6 from the /lib/tls directory. How did things fail > for you? So, I've made some more experiments... Both systems I tested the patches on yesterday use 2.6 kernels, one is my laptop with a real old Sarge, the other one a fresh Ubuntu Breezy, with the same mindi package as unstable and a libc2.3.5. Both behave the same way with both patches : break with the first one (only the libraries in TLS) and succeed with mine. I had a closer look at the differences in ldd's output - about ld-linux.so : old libc6 : ld-linux.so.2 => ld-linux.so.2 new libc6 : ld-linux.so.2 So, ok, with the original mindi behaviour, ld-linux.so doesn't get included on the cd. So, ok, nothing can work. - for all "normal" libraries, it depends on the kernel... kernel 2.4.27 : libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 kernel 2.6.7 : libc6.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 and different again with the 2.6.12 And here is the trick, I think : if I call mindi on a system with a 2.6 kernel with the first patch, only the libs in tls get included. But if my CD boots with the 2.4 FAILSAFE kernel, I'll need the libs in /lib, that are missing, and not the ones in /lib/tls. So, I verified: - system with 2.4 kernel, FAILSAFE kernel on the CD, first patch : ok - system with 2.6 kernel, system's 2.6 kernel on the CD, first patch : ok - system with 2.6 kernel, FAILSAFE kernel on the CD, first patch : can't find libc6. The second patch is necessary, in order to let mindi include the libraries in /lib. By the way, do you always use your own kernel with mondo ? I haven't looked at the doc for a long time, but I think Hugo insisted that Debian users should use the failsafe kernel - and so do many comments in the code ! Is it still good advice, or should we rather use our own kernels ? I just tried it, and it seems to work - and my laptop hangs with 2.4.*, anyway... > > As far as your patch is concerned, I'd generally be happy to just use it > if it works (which I believe it does). However, I'd rather see one > single command and not a sequence of four. Do you think you could do > that? (You may call me anal but you may also check bug #222052 for the > same line of argumentation. ;-);-) ) Well... I've just read #222052 and understand the point. But : - the example shows what happens with piped greps on very big files (many MBs). Here, we don't treat more than a small number of short lines at once. - sed programs can be incredibly efficient and short. And I really like it ! I use mondo to clone old PCs in the school where I work, and I use sed to manipulate the Windows registry after restauration - and I would never have thought it could be so easy before learning sed... Though, sed programs (like regexps) get quickly difficult to read and debug, as it's difficult to see the effects step by step, the way you can do it with simple piped commands. Well, if I find something really elegant, I'll tell you ! But what I sent yesterday is easy to understand and debug - just what #222052 requested, would I say :-)). Thierry -- Thierry Lathuille Annemasse, France -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
