Re: libdb2 or Hurd issue?
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 01:58:17AM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I went digging through the source, and it seems that libdb2, like
> > rpm, assumes some things about O_RDONLY/O_WRONLY/O_RDWR which are not
> > true on the Hurd.
>
> I think we fixed this a long time ago. Which versions do you use?
> This is in the libc ChangeLog, and I know for sure that this was propagated
> to db2 standalone library.
It's not in db-2.7.7-2.2, which appears to be the most recent version.
It is at least the most recent source on ftp.debian.org. It looks like
the change may have been reverted, as the date on the source upload is
Jun 8 2000, well after the changelog entry.
>
> 1999-06-07 Roland McGrath <roland@baalperazim.frob.com>
>
> * db2/os/os_oflags.c (__db_oflags): Fix checking of O_ACCMODE bits to
> be POSIX compliant. Prior definition was broken for Hurd.
> Reported by Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>.
>
<rant>
I'm getting sick of this Debian stuff, I keep getting dead-ended. This
is painful. I've packaged lots of stuff with RPM, where I don't have to
wait on the maintainer (because I can send the patch *and* distribute
the RPM), or other architectures (because patches distributed with the
RPM can be conditionally applied just for that arch). Am I missing
something? It's almost painful restraining myself from making an
RPM-based Hurd distribtution - I only do it because I figure the
duplication of effort would hurt the project (although I've given it
some thought lately, and I'm not sure that assumption is correct - as
long as the projects share the same patch pool and dialog).
Having to keep pace with the i386 distro is a *very* big albatross at
such an early stage in the game, especially since most of the package
maintainers aren't going to be keen to the Hurd's particular issues.
I kicked out six packages a day, debugged and tested, on CLUG's (now
defunct) secure-linux project, and I practically built a distribution
from scratch at my previous employer (it was sort of based on RH5.2) -
complete with boot and installation procedures. Here, I just can't seem
to get a single package out.
</rant>
Okay, the above rant is probably flamebait. I've spent the last twenty
minutes re-reading it. I still need to say it, because I need to know
whether I'm missing something really big here or other people agree.
-Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice
Reply to: