At Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:19:57 -0700,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Given that other packages may in the future begin to depend on this
> interface, I think this should really just be done as a shlibdeps bump.
I investigated this problem, and finally I decided to bump up shlib
vers because (1) it seems it
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:35:29PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:30:08AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > OK, I put the patch. Currently I found the problem about schedutils.
> > Once schedutils `taskset' command uses new sched_getaffinity and
> > sched_setaffinity i
At Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:35:29 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:30:08AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > OK, I put the patch. Currently I found the problem about schedutils.
> >
> > Once schedutils `taskset' command uses new sched_getaffinity and
> > sched_setaffinity
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:30:08AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> OK, I put the patch. Currently I found the problem about schedutils.
>
> Once schedutils `taskset' command uses new sched_getaffinity and
> sched_setaffinity interface (which has GLIBC_2.3.4), schedutils has to
> depend on glibc >=
I forgot to say that if we use schedutils compiled with glibc
2.3.2.ds1-21 (using new sched_{get,set}affinity) + glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21
runtime libraries:
bash-2.05b# ./taskset
taskset version 1.3.4
...
But if we use schedutils compiled with glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21 + glibc
2.3.2.ds
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:13:49 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:46:24AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:31:56 +0200,
> > Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > Also GLIBC_PRIVATE is only used by glibc itself, so the only source of
> > > problems may the different
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:46:24AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:31:56 +0200,
> Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Also GLIBC_PRIVATE is only used by glibc itself, so the only source of
> > problems may the different glibc packages. But I currently see nothing
> > which may really cause
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:31:56 +0200,
Bastian Blank wrote:
> Also GLIBC_PRIVATE is only used by glibc itself, so the only source of
> problems may the different glibc packages. But I currently see nothing
> which may really cause problems here as ld.so is not effected. (See this
> as a small part of t
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:59:35 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> The only thing that might be affected would be GLIBC_PRIVATE, and
> nothing needs to be compatible with GLIBC_PRIVATE outside the glibc
> packages. I don't think it will actually affect GLIBC_PRIVATE, either,
> but I'd have to play arou
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:04:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:46:51 -0700,
> David Mosberger wrote:
> > GOTO> I fear to change this interface until sarge release because there
> > GOTO> might be another packages that uses sched_setaffinity.
> >
> > Well, yes, schedutil
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:04:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> The problem I concerned is the symbol GLIBC_PRIVATE is defined as
> GLIBC_2.3.4, not the current symbol GLIBC_2.3.3. I'm not certain this
> change does not cause any problems.
It is a chain of version definitions. But binaries only
At Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:46:51 -0700,
David Mosberger wrote:
> GOTO> I fear to change this interface until sarge release because there
> GOTO> might be another packages that uses sched_setaffinity.
>
> Well, yes, schedutils probably would need updating. I don't know of
> anything else, though.
At Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:11:07 -0700,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Investigation in the lintian lab on gluck.d.o shows that there are at
> > > least
> > > two packages, valgrind and schedutils, which would need to be updated to
> > > use
> > > the new API once this change is uploaded. Unfortunately,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:32:29PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:19:06 -0800,
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:44:10PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > The attached patch updates sched_[gs]etaffinity to the new interface
> > > from glibc 2.3.4.
> I hav
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:29 +0900, GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
GOTO> I fear to change this interface until sarge release because there
GOTO> might be another packages that uses sched_setaffinity.
Well, yes, schedutils probably would need updating. I don't know of
an
At Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:19:06 -0800,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:44:10PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > The attached patch updates sched_[gs]etaffinity to the new interface
> > from glibc 2.3.4.
I have difficulties with this patch. This patch adds new interface
glibc 2.3.4
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:44:10PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> The attached patch updates sched_[gs]etaffinity to the new interface
> from glibc 2.3.4.
Investigation in the lintian lab on gluck.d.o shows that there are at least
two packages, valgrind and schedutils, which would need to be update
tags 297769 patch
thanks
The attached patch updates sched_[gs]etaffinity to the new interface
from glibc 2.3.4.
Bastian
--
Phasers locked on target, Captain.
diff -ruN glibc-2.3.2.ds1/debian/changelog glibc-2.3.2.ds1.new/debian/changelog
--- glibc-2.3.2.ds1/debian/changelog2005-03-24 15:16:
18 matches
Mail list logo
