Nate Williams wrote:
>
> > 1. Should the ucontext_t changes be backed out, or is this the
> >way we would like to go? (but only it better :-)
>
> We need something. Rather than say 'something better', I'd need to see
> what that better things is. However, given Bruce's comments earlier, it
> 1. Should the ucontext_t changes be backed out, or is this the
>way we would like to go? (but only it better :-)
We need something. Rather than say 'something better', I'd need to see
what that better things is. However, given Bruce's comments earlier, it
seems like we need to have uconte
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> So, to start with issue 2:
>
> To start with the beginning:
>
> 1. Should the ucontext_t changes be backed out, or is this the
>way we would like to go? (but only it better :-)
I think we want to keep the ucontext changes. SUSv2 requires them
when SA_SIGINFO is se
Ok,
While in general the integration went well, a couple of issues have been
raised. These are:
1. building with a -current source tree on -stable fails. This also
means that we currently don't have the possibility to upgrade
from -stable to -current.
2. Incompatibilities wrt to the disapp
