On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:05:35PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:45:52 +0200, > Mattia Dongili wrote: > > [Cc-ing d-devel and d-glibc to try to have full opinions] > > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:48:36PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > This library has been included in glibc 2.3.4 (04/08/2004 in changelog) > > > > and will no more actively maintaind by upstream as a separate library. > > > > I'd like to package libmqueue before sarge to allow sarge users use this > > > > feature (also, Debian's 2.6 kernel come with CONFIG_POSIX_MQUEUE=y). > > > > The topic has been breifly discussed on -glibc[1] but I'd like to also > > > > hear -devel opinions on how much mess could the inclusion of such > > > > library cause, since as soon as sarge is released a glibc upgrade will > > > > happen and I'll have to maintain an almost dead library for sarge only. > > > > If the inclusion into main is not worth the efffort I can still provide > > > > the library through other means (eg: mentors.debian.net) > > > > > > I think it's a bad idea to have debian be different from any distro. > > I don't understand why you think it's bad idea. Until glibc included > mqueue, it was existed as separated library. AFAIK, there is no > application that use mqueue library in main. This means user links > mqueue library with his application with his hand. > > BTW, Enabling mqueue facility needs kernel support; it's good idea to > support that sysvinit mount mqueue for conforming to the POSIX > compliance if it's available like tmpfs + POSIX shared memory, in the > future.
Right, AFAIK sarge installer boots with a 2.4 by default so the common situation is that POSIX_MQUEUE is not available, thus, and for the reasons expressed by Gotosan, I think patching debian glibc is not an option. -- mattia :wq!
