Re: dpkg 126.96.36.199.1 bug
Anders Hammarquist (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote on 21 May 1998 18:24:
>> Interesting, but why doesn't this happen on Intel machines??? I've
>> just installed 2.1.102 on a dual PII and installed manpages without a
>On intel, lchown has the same syscall number as the "old" chown (so
>there the new syscall is the new behavoir of chown). On alpha, this
>path was not chosen (possibly having to do with DU compatibility) so
>binaries (such as tar) which expect chown to act as lchown fail.
Ugh :-( :-(
>Yes, it's a mess. There probably needs to be a more permanent fix for
Obviously. In fact, linux on the alpha is a mess... There's this
problem, there's no distribution of 2.0.x with the alpha patches
integrated (that's why I'm using 2.1.x)...
Anyway, THIS IS A BUG IN TAR/DPKG/WHATEVER. If the kernel behaves
differently than applications should take this into account!!! I'll
file a bug report for this.
BTW, submitting a bug report for the alpha is the same as for x86?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org