Hi, On Mittwoch, 23. Dezember 2015, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > I have to admit, I cannot follow: > > - if this is fixed, why is 806911 still open? > The "bug" is still there, just not triggerable anymore on amd64 and > i386.
ok
> I use "bug" as when faking the kernel version to change the result
> of versions comparisons, one should expect the result of such
> comparisons to be wrong.
Again, can't follow. Surely tests testing for kernel >= 3.0 will fail or is
that what you ment?
> > - also, the hosts runs jessie and this is where we run linux64 on and
> > from, so how are changes in sid+testing relevant in our setup anyway?
> > (actually we run jessie, sometimes with jessie kernels and and on some
> > other hosts with bpo kernels or even never…)
>
> The host might runs jessie, but from the bug report I understood the
> bug happened in a testing or sid chroot.
yes (with pbuilder chroots)
> > - why did you 2.6._32_ mention at all, and not "2.6" (or maybe 2.6.56)?
>
> We lowered the minimum required kernel version to 2.6.32 instead of 3.2
> on amd64 and i386. When comparing kernel versions with the uname26
> personality, we have the following relations when the minimum kernel
> version is 2.6.32:
> - 3.x kernels aka 2.6.40+x > 2.6.32, this works
> - 4.x kernels aka 2.6.60+x > 2.6.32, this works
>
> However when the minimum kernel version is 3.2:
> - 3.x kernels aka 2.6.40+x < 3.2, this do not work
> - 4.x kernels aka 2.6.60+x < 3.2, this do not work
I cant follow. Probably this is because I fully expect this to happen… but
somewhere in between I must be lost… or are you talking about build
requirements for libc itself?
> > - and, finally, in conclusion, is it safe to enable building with
> > "linux64 -- uname2.6" again?
> On amd64 and i386 it should be safe.
Guess I will try then.
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
