Re: _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 not supported (was: Re: WARNING fileutils 4.0x-1 severly broken

2000-07-28 Thread Roland McGrath
> The culprit is that fileutils now defines _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 on the Hurd, > which sucks in functions like readdir64, lseek64 etc > > backupfile.o(.text+0x154): warning: readdir64 is not implemented and will always fail > cp.o: In function `main': > cp.o(.text+0x150d): warning: stat64 is not i

Re: _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 not supported (was: Re: WARNING fileutils 4.0x-1 severly broken

2000-07-28 Thread Mark Kettenis
[ Argh... It's [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:27:09 +0200 From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The culprit is that fileutils now defines _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 on the Hurd, which sucks in functions like readdir64, lseek64 etc Can we easily implement those? Not

Re: _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 not supported (was: Re: WARNING fileutils 4.0x-1 severly broken

2000-07-28 Thread Mark Kettenis
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:27:09 +0200 From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The culprit is that fileutils now defines _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 on the Hurd, which sucks in functions like readdir64, lseek64 etc Can we easily implement those? Not really. I have to use --disable

_FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64 not supported (was: Re: WARNING fileutils 4.0x-1 severly broken

2000-07-28 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:53:28PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Hi, > > Do NOT install fileutils 4.0x-1 that's in the archive since > yesterday. > > It is utterly broken. Even the simplest functions like rm, ln > return "Function not implemented" The culprit is that fileutils now defines _F