[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Glibc? Patch or not?

Christopher C Chimelis writes:
 > Did we ever decide on what to do with glibc as far as the lchown() issue?
 > The discussion was a bit lengthy so I missed some of it, but never got a
 > resolution.  Was it decided to continue on the way it is or change it
 > somehow?

I propose the patch below, it apply on the unpacked source glibc
package, there are corresponding binary deb packages on

I strongly suggest we take this one or an equivalent one that
guarantee at least the same good properties as far as the (l)chown
issue is concerned (hope I am correct with these assertions):
- follow the same semantics that most(all?) other ports
- should work perfectly with 2.0 broken kernel,2.0 fixed kernels, >= 2.1.9?
  kernels (people running unstable kernels between 2.1.0 and 2.1.9?
  will still have the problem unless you had one test in the patch).
- should work perfectly with any old or recent, patch or unpatched
  version of dpkg, tar, chown, ...
- should work with any combination of the the above entities.
- upgrading to this library is safe from any start point.

At the same time, I suggest we put a predepends in dpkg, tar, and
maybe fileutils, on a recent enough library (that includes
lchown) to guarantee nice upgrades.

Of course maybe some other people should check that my patch is
correct and the deb work everywhere.



Attachment: glibc.patch
Description: Binary data

Reply to: