On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:43:09AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:30:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:29:54PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Recompiling libacl1 (itself an awkward task since the package itself > > > > segfaults in the middle when it is doing something to the postinst > > > > script) > > > > and installing the recompiled version fixes the problem. > > > Any advice/suggestions, anyone?
> > If it *is* a kernel ABI issue, it would be appropriate for the current > > libacl1 package in sarge to include a preinst check for the running > Yep, OK. I guess I'm not following how a kernel ABI issue > could be resolved by a re-compile though (not to say it is > not an ABI issue, just that I don't understand how). Yeah, I'm not clear on it either, which is why I was really hoping someone from arm circles would provide some input. Another possibility is that it's not an ABI issue in your code, but that the binaries in the archive were somehow miscompiled, and a simple recompile fixes it. If someone could do a rebuild of the package for arm using the final sarge toolchain, and running an official sarge kernel, we could ask the submitter to test that binary and get it uploaded if it's good. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
